DEEPCUT REVIEW

Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of a review by Nicholas Blake QC of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four soldiers at Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, between 1995 and 2002.—[Tony Cunningham.]

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Asia

Piara S Khabra: What steps his Department is taking to co-ordinate international aid and development in Asia.

Gareth Thomas: The Department remains at the forefront of efforts to improve the effectiveness, quality and co-ordination of aid to Asia. Earlier this month, we successfully hosted a major international conference to chart the development partnerships that are needed with Asian Governments and civil society. Later this year, we will take part in a further, smaller seminar specifically focused on aid effectiveness in the region.

Piara S Khabra: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What part of the development budget is allocated to primary school education in India?

Gareth Thomas: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's continued advocacy of investment in development assistance for India. He is right that more progress is needed in getting every child into primary school, and he may be aware that we, in partnership with the World Bank and the European Commission, have committed some £210 million to India's primary education drive. He will also be pleased to hear that the number of children in India who do not go to school has fallen from some 25 million in 2003 to 9.6 million in November 2005. We have made progress, but there is more that we need to do.

Mark Simmonds: Inward investment and export-driven growth have lifted 500 million people in Asia out of poverty, yet the area remains home to two thirds of the world's poor, with dramatic wealth disparities. Many people in Asia are concerned that they are ignored, in preference to Africa. The UN Development Programme believes that the solution is greater regional co-operation, but a DFID report criticised the Asian Development Bank for being too centralised and poorly co-ordinated. What is the Minister doing to strengthen DFID's support for region-wide initiatives on matters such as water, transport, disease, disaster preparedness, corruption and drug trafficking, which all play a part in exacerbating and perpetuating poverty in Asia?

Gareth Thomas: As I mentioned in my answer to the original question, we hosted a major international conference, attended by more than 150 Asian Ministers, senior officials and representatives of business and civil society, which was opened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. Its aim was precisely to talk through the challenges that still have to be met if the millennium development goals in Asia are to be achieved. It looked at what has been successful over the past 10 years, and at the further challenges ahead. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that, at that conference, we committed some $50 million to try to catalyse further investment in infrastructure projects in Asia. We continue to work on supporting Pakistan's anti-corruption strategy and further efforts to improve public financial management across the region. We are already doing a lot to support tackling the governance problems to which he rightly alluded, but he will know that the challenges facing us with poverty in Asia mean that all donors have to do more.

Nigeria

Shahid Malik: What assessment he has made of the impact of Nigeria's debt repayment programme on its poverty reduction strategy and economy.

Hilary Benn: The October 2005 Paris Club agreement with Nigeria—which the Nigerian Government pushed for—represents the largest debt-relief deal ever in sub-Saharan Africa. The UK alone will cancel £2.8 billion and the Government of Nigeria will use part of its oil windfall to pay off the remaining debt. The savings from the deal will free up at least an additional $1 billion a year for Nigeria to spend on reducing poverty, and will help employ an extra 120,000 teachers and enable 3.5 million children to go to school.

Shahid Malik: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. There is speculation in certain quarters that Britain is a net beneficiary of Nigeria's debt repayment programme. Will he confirm or deny that that is the case, and offer clarification?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right: two thirds of Nigeria's debt will be written off, and the remaining third will be paid back at a discount. The UK will receive £1.7 billion as a result, but I emphasise that the Government of Nigeria asked for this deal, and pressed for it. Nigeria will make a one-off payment but will receive a continuing long-term benefit. As a result, it will make the savings of $1 billion in the first year to which I have referred already. That money will go on further investment in health, education, water, power, agriculture and public works. Frankly, it would have been impossible for Nigeria to have secured such a deal two years ago, as the world would not have agreed it. That is a testament to the country's efforts at reform.

Stephen Crabb: The Secretary of State will be aware that Nigeria ranks close to the bottom of Transparency International's index of corruption. What independent studies has DFID commissioned on the effectiveness of our aid to countries where there is a high level of corruption? How do such assessments affect decisions about where we target our aid resources?

Hilary Benn: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters, as his ten-minute Bill yesterday demonstrated. We base our assessments on the situation in different countries and we adjust the way in which we give our aid according to the outcome of the assessment. Corruption has indeed been a big problem in Nigeria for a long time, but the Government have begun to take action and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has launched a number of investigations that have resulted in the prosecution of high-ranking politicians and others. They have also reformed their public expenditure management.
	Due to that process of reform Nigeria was able to persuade the Paris Club and the international community to back the debt deal, which is an international acknowledgement of the efforts that Nigeria has begun to make. Furthermore, Nigeria is one of the strongest supporters of the extractive industries transparency initiative and I welcome that enormously.

Gordon Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as Nigeria's ability to reform further its Government institutions, which we are seeing, the paramount factor in the country's development will be its ability to grow its own private sector?

Hilary Benn: I agree. One of the ways to encourage private sector investment to Nigeria is to tackle corruption. If investors are faced with the choice between a country where corruption is endemic and a country where it has been tackled, it is not surprising if they choose to invest the money where they will not have to pay bribes.

John Leech: I understand that the Chancellor said that there are technical reasons why the British Government cannot reduce Nigeria's debt. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what they are and is he committed to overcoming them?

Hilary Benn: I am not sure that I follow the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, because in fact we are contributing to reducing Nigeria's debt by having agreed to the deal as part of the Paris Club. If, as may be the case, the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, he is aware that it has an obligation to break even on its activities and to recover debt owed to it. It might help the hon. Gentleman to know that Dr. Mansur Muhtar, the director general of the debt management office in Nigeria, said:
	"This deal represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to rid ourselves of the shackles of our accumulated debts and, as a country, start anew . . . It is our second declaration of independence. It is worthy of celebration."
	That is the view in Nigeria and that is why we supported the deal.

Drought (East Africa)

Andrew Love: What steps his Department is taking to assist drought victims in east Africa.

Hilary Benn: This is the worst drought in east Africa for more than a decade, with potentially devastating consequences. We have been responding for several months and the priorities now are water, food and supplementary feeding for malnourished children. Our contribution so far stands at £35.9 million, which makes us the second biggest bilateral donor after the United States of America.

Andrew Love: Sadly, we have been here before. Not only does the horn of Africa suffer from drought, as my right hon. Friend indicated, but even in good times people do not have the level of income that prevents them from going hungry. Will my right hon. Friend say how he sees us dealing with some of the longer-term problems so that we address both the drought and the lack of income for many people living in the horn of Africa?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our first practical and moral obligation is to make sure that people do not die, which is why we are making those efforts, in particular in Kenya, where we are most worried about the situation, but also in southern Ethiopia and southern Somalia, where access is extremely difficult. Many people live on the margins year in and year out, and it does not take much to tip them over the edge, so as well as providing assistance, we need to look at ways in which we can help people to get established again. That is why we have been pioneering the safety nets programme in southern Ethiopia, which I saw for myself when I was there just under two months ago, whereby we give cash as well as food, because although most of the cash is spent on food, some of it can be saved; for example, to buy back the plough that had to be sold, to buy fertiliser or seeds, or clothes for the children. When I talked to farmers in the region, I realised the difference the programme was making to their lives. The international community needs to do both to enable people to cope.

Susan Kramer: Could the Secretary of State tell us what money has been released from the central emergency response fund for the crisis in east Africa? Given the extent of that and other crises, what efforts are being made to persuade donor countries other than the UK to build up to the CERF target of $500 million?

Hilary Benn: First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position as the Liberal spokesperson. As she will have discovered already, it is a wonderful job and a privilege to speak on these matters, and I wish her well in her post.
	CERF has already given $13.5 million in response to the crisis, and we hope that it will provide $30 million in total to start with. I was present in New York for the launch of CERF, and to see 36 countries, including some that had not committed to the fund before, contributing $257 million, which is the total that we have got so far, was very gratifying. The fund has already proven its worth by responding immediately to the crisis, and we are doing all that we can, as well as playing our part by being a generous donor, to encourage other donors around the world to understand the nature of the crisis in the horn of Africa and to contribute accordingly.

Sally Keeble: My right hon. Friend is aware of my concern about east Africa, particularly in relation to Kenya, that development assistance ends up going through different organisations either to the Kenyan Government or to be blocked by the Kenyan Government. What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to ensure that funds that are intended for the poorest people in that country are not blocked by a corrupt Government?

Hilary Benn: In relation to humanitarian assistance in Kenya, we are working through UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. They are tried and trusted partners, and we know that the money will go to the people who are intended to benefit from it. As for our broader development assistance, as my hon. Friend will be aware, we do not give direct budget support in Kenya, precisely because of the risks of corruption. We provide support to the education system, where, because of a change that the Government have made, money goes direct from the central budget to the budget of individual schools and the allocations are written on blackboards outside the schools, so that parents can see where the money has gone. In relation to the global fund, there is still some further work to do, and it is a subject that my hon. Friend and I have discussed before.

Darfur

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Darfur.

Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Darfur.

Hilary Benn: The humanitarian situation in Darfur has stabilised, owing to the massive relief effort, but it is still fragile. Security, especially in west Darfur, has got worse in recent months, which is hampering relief efforts. There is a danger that the improvements made in 2005 will be reversed. The UK remains at the forefront of efforts to provide humanitarian assistance. We are the second biggest donor, and we are providing considerable support to the African Union mission. At the peace talks in Abuja, we are pressing for a political solution that will allow people to return home and rebuild their lives.

Andrew MacKay: As the United Nations describes the western region of Darfur as having the worst humanitarian crisis anywhere in the world at present, should we not all hold our heads in shame because we have not done more to ensure security in that area? Much as I would welcome the African Union playing the principal role in Darfur, was it not unrealistic not to have given it more assistance earlier?

Hilary Benn: If any hon. Member was one of the 1.8 million people living in the refugee camps who tonight, as last night and tomorrow night, must stay there because they cannot go home, he or she may well be inclined to share the view that the right hon. Gentleman expresses. This is a test for the international community, and the fact is that the world has not done enough to protect the people of Darfur. The African Union mission went in to provide support. We were the first country in the world to provide it with help. I committed a further £20 million when I was in Darfur a month ago, and I hope that, as on other issues that we have discussed today, other countries will play their part, but I came to the view some time ago that the only long-term solution was for the United Nations to take over the mission. That is why we have pressed so hard for that to happen, and why I welcome the peace and security council's decision to carry on with planning. I hope that the Government of Sudan will co-operate with that.

Tony Baldry: With ethnic cleansing, upwards of 180,000 people murdered, 1.8 million men, women and children wretchedly displaced in camps, the security situation deteriorating and the Janjaweed still armed and active, the main responsibility for that tragic situation lies with the Government of Sudan. What is the UN sanctions committee doing? What is the UN Security Council doing to make it clear to those in Khartoum that, simply because they have oil, they cannot continue to behave like political pariahs with impunity?

Hilary Benn: I share the hon. Gentleman's frustration. As he will be aware, we pressed very hard as the United Kingdom for the sanctions committee to be established. Not every member of the Security Council was keen to do that, as we and one or two other countries were. It has now been working for a number of months, and a second report has just been produced. I hope that a conclusion will now be found, because where evidence exists that individuals—whether the rebels or representatives of the Government of Sudan, including the military—have done things in breach of commitments that they have entered into, it is essential that the international community demonstrates that we meant to take action when we set up the sanctions committee and that people begin to see that there is a price to pay as individuals if they fail to do the things that they promised to do.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the talks in Abuja significant progress has been made with regard to both power sharing and wealth sharing, but the issue of security is the sticking point. Is there not a strong case for him, with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to put significant pressure on those Governments who are against the United Nations coming into Sudan? Unless those Governments change their minds, progress will be somewhat slower than we all want.

Hilary Benn: I know that my hon. Friend, as chair of the all-party group on Sudan, takes a close interest in all these matters and I agree with him. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was, of course, in Abuja just over a month ago to do precisely that. We have been working very hard to persuade those in the African Union who have reservations—it is principally the Government of Sudan; frankly, I have to say, because they lack insight into their condition—and who are responsible for what has been going on for the past three years. However, I welcome the fact that the peace and security council agreed to carry on with planning. It is important that that planning takes place so that a transfer to the United Nations can happen as quickly as possible.

Malcolm Bruce: May I draw the House's attention to the fact that the Government's response to the International Development Committee's report "Darfur: the killing continues" is published tomorrow? I welcome that, but will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, if we are to get security and normality back into Darfur—meaning getting people back on the land—we need not just the African Union, but the United Nations and the Government of Sudan to work together to achieve that. In that context, does he not agree that it was perhaps inappropriate to give comfort to Salah Abdullah Gosh, the head of intelligence in Sudan, by granting a visa for medical treatment in this country, and that the Sudanese Government should know that, until they solve this problem, they are not welcome anywhere?

Hilary Benn: The decision was taken for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman refers to. The visa was granted because of a medical condition. I do not see any incompatibility between that decision, on an individual case, for reasons of medical need, and being absolutely clear, as we have been as a Government, about what the Government of Sudan now need to do to bring the crisis to an end.

Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a long-term solution in Darfur only when all parties are willing to negotiate seriously? Is he also aware that that has not happened in the past? What is his assessment of the situation at the moment? Are all parties, including the rebels, negotiating seriously?

Hilary Benn: The talks in Abuja have been going on for two years and they have not reached an agreement. The rebels bear part of the responsibility for not having engaged in those talks with the seriousness that the situation demands. I welcome the fact that, following my discussions in Khartoum a month ago, the Government of Sudan said that they would bring forward new proposals for those negotiations. What the world now wants to see and, above all, what people in Darfur want to see, is those talks reaching a conclusion so that a deal can be done.

Andrew Mitchell: Following the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 1663 last Friday and the deteriorating humanitarian situation building up on the Chad-Sudan border, does the Secretary of State accept that it is critically important that we beef up the logistical capacity of the African Union forces stationed there, if the international community's much-vaunted adoption last year of the responsibility to protect is to have any real meaning at all?

Hilary Benn: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. That is why Britain is committing a further £20 million to support the AU mission and why we have already provided logistical assistance—we have provided getting on for 900 vehicles to give the AU mission greater capacity to get around in Darfur—and why I still hope that the African Union will be able to find further troops in the interim, before the United Nations comes in.

Andrew Mitchell: Is the House not right to be restless and angry at the languid approach that the various Sudanese parties are taking towards the peace talks in Abuja, which are now in their seventh round? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the British Government's considerable clout and authority, through their involvement and concern at what is happening in Darfur, are used to put the maximum pressure on all the parties engaged in Abuja to speed up the talks?

Hilary Benn: Once again I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did precisely that when he went to Abuja to say, in effect, "We're running out of patience." We have since seen a greater intensity in negotiations, but, in the end, it is only the rebels and the Government of Sudan who can reach a deal. It is vital that the whole of the international community—not just the British Government—makes it clear to those who are negotiating in Abuja that they now have to do a deal because it is the only way in which the 1.8 million people who will tonight once again be in those camps can go home, which is what they want.

Afghanistan

Graham Stuart: If he will make a statement on his Department's activities in Afghanistan.

Gareth Thomas: At the London conference, the Prime Minister signed with President Karzai a 10-year development partnership agreement to provide some £330 million of development assistance over the next three years. That is part of the overall UK pledge of £500 million—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) to put his question, may I please appeal to the House to keep the level of noise down? Not only is it disrespectful to Members who still have questions and the Ministers who will answer them, but it gives a terrible impression outside this place.

Graham Stuart: Spending on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan doubled last year to £50 million. What return is the British taxpayer receiving on that investment?

Gareth Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to know that there was a 21 per cent. reduction in cultivation last year. However, we cannot afford to be complacent about last year's positive progress, which is why the deployment of further UK troops to Helmand is important. Further spending by the Department on alternative livelihoods will also be important to continue the process of tackling the narcotics trade, which is well-embedded in Afghanistan.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend will know that the national action plan for women was one of the benchmarks of the compact that was launched at the successful international London conference. Will he congratulate the United Nations Development Fund for Women and the 26 Ministries that took part in preparing the plan? Will he examine carefully whether resources from his Department can be offered to the Ministry of Women's Affairs to implement the plan?

Gareth Thomas: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the 26 Afghan Ministries, as supported by UNIFEM, in drawing up the plan. She will know of the substantial assistance that we are giving to the Afghan budget, and the Afghans can decide how they want to spend their guaranteed resources. I have no doubt that they are serious about their action plan for women and that is powerfully demonstrated by the number of women elected to the Afghan Parliament—there are proportionally more than in the UK Parliament. We will continue to work with all Ministries in Afghanistan to promote the empowerment of women further.

Central Asia

Greg Hands: If he will make a statement on his Department's support for the countries of central Asia in the last five years.

Gareth Thomas: In the five financial years up to March 2005, we committed a total of £28.3 million to bilateral programmes in the five central Asian countries. We are now focusing on the two poorest countries, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.

Greg Hands: It is now almost a year since the Andijan massacre in Uzbekistan on 12 May 2005. What assistance has the Minister's Department provided to promote good governance in Uzbekistan in the past year?

Gareth Thomas: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his appointment as chair of the all-party group on central Asia. I look forward to the opportunity of talking to him about our efforts to tackle poverty across the central Asian states. In the light of what happened last year, we took the decision to end our bilateral programme in Uzbekistan, precisely because of the policies of the Uzbek Government. We continue to work with several multilateral agencies if we think that their substantial funding might exert leverage on the Uzbek Government to encourage a return to better policies and greater respect for human rights in the country.

Africa

Jim Sheridan: What key milestones he has set for his Department's work in Africa in 2006.

Hilary Benn: The Government's Gleneagles implementation plan sets out milestones for the implementation of the G8's 2005 commitments on Africa. Progress is being made, and targets for the rest of 2006 include the implementation of 100 per cent. debt cancellation by the World Bank and the African Development Bank; agreement on a plan to achieve universal access to AIDS treatment by 2010; an African stand-by force able to deploy 20,000 personnel; and the conclusion of the WTO trade round with real benefits to developing countries.

Jim Sheridan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. The report of the Commission for Africa was published just a year ago for Africa and for Gleneagles and for beyond that. How will the commitments made by the world community be monitored and what mechanisms will be put in place thereafter?

Hilary Benn: The commitment will be monitored first by the Africa Partnership Forum, representing donors and the countries of Africa. Above all, it will be monitored by the people who marched, campaigned, lobbied and wrote letters to ensure that in 2005 it was possible to achieve the real progress that we saw. In the end, it will be the public and those who are passionate about fighting poverty who will determine whether we are making progress.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Taylor: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 March.

John Prescott: I have been asked to reply. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on an official visit meeting the Heads of Government in Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia. While away, my right hon. Friend has supported all our athletes competing at the Commonwealth games. I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate all of them on their success. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] My right hon. Friend has addressed the Australian Parliament and today has participated in a climate change conference in New Zealand. In Indonesia, he will meet the President and Islamic leaders.

David Taylor: The Prime Minister's antipodean away-days are surely unconnected with my appearance for Question 1 [Laughter.] In my right hon. Friend's absence, the row about links between private philanthropy and political preference rumbles on. It has been a major problem for all parties since Lloyd George through to Asil Nadir and up to the present day. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me when we plan to deliver on our manifesto—page 110—with a major reform of the House of Lords and the clean up of party finance, which as his predecessor, Lord Hattersley, said in Monday's edition of The Guardian, appears to be a choice between state funding and millionaires' handouts?

John Prescott: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is giving me full support for our manifesto—that is not necessarily always guaranteed. My hon. Friend has raised an issue that many feel strongly about. I should make it clear that our manifesto pledge related to the absurdity in the 21st century that hereditary peers still have a major role in making the laws of our country. Let me be clear to the House about what our manifesto said. It said that we wanted to get rid of the remaining 100 hereditary peers and that we wanted to change the rules that affect the Orders of the House of Lords, which prevent the will of this House being carried out on identity cards, for example. That is what we intend to change. That is the manifesto commitment, and we will carry it out.

William Hague: What representations did the Deputy Prime Minister make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue the £200 payment to help pensioners with council tax?

John Prescott: I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman back on the Opposition Front Bench in a leadership role. It seems that the Tories have been going through leaders so fast that they have started at the beginning again. They are now so green that they are even recycling their leaders. [Hon. Members: "More, more".] Us Rotherham lads must stick together, must we not?
	As for the £200 payment, yes, we had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yes, we discussed the winter fuel payment of £200. [Interruption.] No, it was a commitment to pay that council tax rebate in one year, as we did. We have given a considerable amount to pensioners. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the record of what we have done for pensioners against what he did in Government, I will be proud to stand against our record. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This shouting must stop.

William Hague: The Deputy Prime Minister should be more sympathetic to elderly council tax payers—he is over 65 and he did not pay council tax for years. This week, figures show that council tax has risen by 84 per cent. since the Government came to office, and that a typical pensioner couple will have to pay £254 more in council tax next year than this year. What was so special about election year, that pensioners needed £200 help with the council tax just for that one year?

John Prescott: It is the Government's overall policy to consider payments to pensioners and other things that we give them in the round. That is what we have done, and that is what we continue to do. As for the argument about the payment of council tax, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the comparison between our Government and his Government. We gave in the response a 39 per cent. increase in real terms in council tax, compared with the last five years of his Government, when he had some influence and there was a 7 per cent. reduction in real terms of the contribution to councils for council tax.

William Hague: I think that there was so little English in that answer that President Chirac would have been happy with it. The fact is, Age Concern said that the Chancellor's decision "beggars belief", and Help the Aged described the payment as a "pre-election bribe" that exposed
	"a shameful level of political expediency."
	As the Government think that pensioners need £200 to help with council tax only when an election is due, does the Deputy Prime Minister understand why people are so cynical about politics?

John Prescott: I think that cynicism about politics has more to do with 18 years of Tory Government. Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is true that I may get the grammar wrong? I have to take the blame for that, as that was my education, and I am responsible for it, but I would sooner get the words wrong than get my judgment wrong. After all, he was the leader who slammed Bank of England independence, who claimed that the minimum wage was the height of irresponsibility and would cause unemployment, and who said that Lord Archer was a man of integrity. If there is a choice between getting my words wrong and getting my judgment wrong, I would sooner have my problem than his. As he mentioned President Chirac, does he still believe those who describe the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"? If he does, it makes me look like a master of diplomacy.

Natascha Engel: The tourism season is about to begin with the arrival of spring, and the days are getting longer as the clocks went back this weekend. With that topical thought in mind, will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the building of the world's largest clock—the Solar pyramid, which is an enormous, beautiful sundial in North-East Derbyshire? Will he accept my invitation to visit the newest and best tourist attraction in Derbyshire once it is built?

John Prescott: I would always be delighted to visit Derbyshire. This has a great deal to do with the very successful coalfield community policy that we introduced, providing £500 million to try to restore communities that were destroyed by the Thatcher Government when they closed down the mining industry. I am delighted to hear about the structure to which my hon. Friend referred, and I am well aware that it is connected to Skinner's junction. I think that it will be a memorable place to visit, and I look forward to accepting her invitation.

David Heath: Let us get back to the council tax, because I do not think that we quite received an answer. Since the Deputy Prime Minister took office in 1997 council tax bills have nearly doubled. Whose fault is that?

John Prescott: First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role as acting deputy leader. We all know that the election will take place after today, and I wish him well. The matter is riveting the nation's attention—in fact, on my visit to Hull last weekend they talked of nothing else in the pubs.
	Let me be absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman well knows that we have given more to councils than any other Government—a 39 per cent. increase, and increases in services. When one compares local authorities and the payment of council tax, again Labour is providing better service at a lower council tax than either Liberal or Tory councils.

David Heath: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's good wishes, though I am not sure that they will help me much. Let us get this right. He is saying that thousands of councillors throughout the country and on all councils, whether they are Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, have taken collective leave of their senses year after year to push up the council tax, and that is nothing to do with the Government. He is also saying that this year council tax has gone up by twice the rate that the pension has gone up, and he is taking away the £200 rebate. Is not the answer to council tax not to cap it, but to scrap it?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the debate is going on in the Chamber about what the alternative should be to a council tax or what changes we should make. That is why we have appointed the Lyons inquiry to look into it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a candidate in the election and whether he is still advocating a change to a local tax. It is clear that with a local tax, many people would pay an awful lot more than the present council tax. Policy is changed fast by the Conservatives, and even faster by the Liberals. I will wait to see what happens in the election and what the Liberals propose as the alternative to the council tax. We will bring forward our proposals and see what their alternatives are.

Post Office Card Account

Eric Illsley: If he will reconsider the Government's decision not to renew the Post Office card account after 2010.

John Prescott: This is where closed questions always catch you. [Laughter.] When you get the briefing, they say, "This one's a closed one," and you say, "Oh, yeah."
	Offering people the opportunity to access their benefits through the post office is an important objective to the Government. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office are discussing how this can be achieved when the present contractual arrangements end in 2010.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. As he is aware, the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions not to renew the Post Office card account after 2010 has caused a great deal of concern, especially among pensioners, particularly as to the future of the sub-post office network. Will my right hon. Friend, together with his colleagues in the DWP, work with the major banks and with the Post Office to find a successor account to the Post Office card account from 2010 and get that agreed as quickly as possible, to stop the scaremongering and the fears about the future of our sub-post offices?

John Prescott: The House would agree that every DWP customer who currently collects their benefit from a post office will still be able to do so if they wish. There will be about 25 banks associated with the Post Office order, which can be accessed at post office branches. We hope that that number will grow in the future. I am told by the Post Office that it is developing new banking products for its customers and some of those will be available to existing Post Office card account holders. The point is sometimes made that transferring to a bank account may offer the individual a higher rate of interest than on the Post Office account, but the Government's objective is that there should be a range of alternatives to choose from.

Nigel Evans: But is it not a fact that there are over 4 million pensioners with Post Office card accounts, and millions of those do not have bank accounts at all? Stripping them of that vital lifeline is yet another kick in the teeth for our pensioners and a certain death sentence for thousands more of our post offices. Why are the Government so intent on going ahead with such a callous act against our pensioners?

John Prescott: The concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman have been expressed on both sides of the House. The contracts go on until 2010. Before then we will have to consider the full effect. Of course, many pensioners now have an awful lot more money to put into bank accounts, and more and more are changing to bank accounts, but it is a problem. If we look at the changes that are taking place and being discussed with the Post Office, perhaps we will come to a better conclusion nearer the end of the consultation. The discussions are still under way.

Engagements

Paddy Tipping: Given the Deputy Prime Minister's long-standing involvement in the local government pension scheme, and following yesterday's industrial action in local councils, what steps does he intend to take to ensure that meaningful discussions take place to resolve the dispute?

John Prescott: It is an obvious regret to us all that the trade unions took yesterday's industrial action. To be honest, I did not feel that industrial action was necessary, because the negotiations could have continued. The Government's role is to act as a regulator, and the House has given me the authority to act as a regulator and make sure that the funded scheme is a viable scheme. That is my responsibility, and I intend to fulfil it. The negotiations are between employers and employees. As I have said in a statement to the House, we intend to introduce a regulation this week setting out the changes to the pension arrangements from April that will affect local government pensions. In the meantime, I appeal to all involved to return to the negotiating table. I am pleased to tell the House that those involved are meeting again at 12.30, and the Government are encouraging them to reach an agreement. Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war—I am not sure whether I have always thought that throughout my colourful life, but at this stage, I certainly do.

Lembit �pik: Last year, my father died of motor neurone disease, as do 100,000 people worldwide every year. The good news is that recent medical breakthroughs mean that a cure is almost in our grasp. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in endorsing the Motor Neurone Disease Association's commitment to finding that cure? And will he ask the Prime Minister to meet representatives of the association to hear their thoughts and plans on how together we can end that tragic and heartbreaking illness?

John Prescott: I think that the whole House will want to join me in sending our condolences to the hon. Gentleman on the difficulties that he is going through in his personal circumstances. I am sure that we all know about hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been afflicted by that terrible disease. Not long ago, I visited the former hon. Member for Doncaster, Kevin Hughes, who is suffering from that terrible disease. He is still going out canvassing, which is a remarkable reflection on the man, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to send our best wishes to him. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear] I am also sure that the whole House will want to endorse the work of the Motor Neurone Disease Association. In addition, I welcome the national service framework for long-term conditions, and a 20 million research initiative is now under way to try to speed up the development of new medical treatments for that terrible disease. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will accede to the hon. Gentleman's request to meet the association and discuss the matter. We wish all the best to those who are looking at the experiments and conducting research to try to find an answer to that terrible disease.

David Winnick: Looking on the bright side, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) a moment ago, does my right hon. Friend agree that by doing its job, the House of Lords Appointments Commission has brought about the full disclosure of political loanswe have given the names, unlike the other sidea full public debate about party donations, which has been useful, and a further stage of House of Lords reform, which will apparently take place shortly? All that took place in a fortnightwas that not good work?

John Prescott: I do not know whether the whole contribution was supposed to be funny. My hon. Friend has made a serious point, and I am sure that the recent stories about loans to political parties have undoubtedly caused concern on both sides of the House. As he has said, there has also been a wider public debate about how political parties should be funded. On the one hand, people do not like the idea of wealthy people financing parties, but they appear to be equally strongly against state funding of political parties, which has been my position for a long time. I think that we will have to move towards a form of state financing. [Hon. Members: No, no] I hear hon. Members saying, No, but the Short money is state financing, and I have not seen anybody turn it down. We should not forget that the Government have already introduced some of the reforms to make party funding more transparent, and we have asked Sir Hayden Phillips to review the issues and report by December, which is the best course of action that we can take.

Stephen Hammond: My constituency is part of the outer-London borough of Merton. Our schools are under severe financial pressure. Part of the reason for that is that we pay our teachers the inner-London weighting, but do not receive from the Government the same grant as inner-London boroughs. Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to meet me to discuss that anomaly and commit today to sort out that inequity for our borough?

John Prescott: I assume that that was an eloquent plea for more money. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has 50 more teachers, 340 more teaching assistants and 420 more support staff than in 1997, and that costs money. I take his point about the differential between what teachers are paid in London and outside, and that also applies to firefighters and the police. It does cause difficulties and we try to deal with it. However, he is getting 1,320 more funding per pupil and that is a lot of money. It has improved education, along with more than 1 million of capital investment.
	When the hon. Gentleman criticises how much money we have put in, he should take into account the principle proposed by the Leader of the Opposition on the relationship between growth and spending. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out in the Budget, that means 17 billion less in public expenditure, as agreed by the shadow, erwhatever she is. What is her title? [Hon. Members: Chief Secretary.] Yes, shadow Chief Secretary. I see that she has moved down the Front Bench today, because she went on television and, much to her credit, admitted that the principle would mean a cut in public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman should get his Front Benchers sorted out first.

Martin Salter: Many people, including the shadow Attorney-General have called for complete transparency in party funding. Has my right hon. Friend considered introducing legislation to force political parties to reveal all their sources of funding, say, prior to the last three general elections? That would show us exactly how much of the   1 million donated by the Chinese heroin baron Ma Sik-Chun in 1994 was used to fund the Conservative party printing press in Reading.

John Prescott: It does sound like a Chinese takeaway problem. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and no doubt he will pursue it with his usual vigour.

William Hague: Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that he was right to warn the Prime Minister that Government instability would result from saying in advance that he would go?

John Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman must know that I did not say that at all. Even though he has difficulty understanding what I say, I clearly did not say that. I said that it might cause uncertainties, but as I said on that day, the Prime Minister will make his decision and name the day when the time is right, and the transfer will happen before the next general election. That is the Prime Minister's commitment and that is what we are saying, and that is an important point. I know of no other leader who has made such a commitment as Prime Minister. I know that that would be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman, because he was the first Tory leader never to become a Prime Minister.

William Hague: Well, that was the 2001 election and at least I got through the campaign without hitting anybody. Let us look at the state of this divided Government. The former Secretary of State for Health is attacking the Budget in the Budget debate; the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning is saying that people are being taxed to the limit; allies of the Chancellor are going around saying, Gordon is desperately unhappy; and the Prime Minister has fled the country before the police turn up.
	The Deputy Prime Minister was asked at the weekend when the Prime Minister would go and he said:
	I still think the timetable in people's minds is still reasonably the same.
	What is the timetable?

John Prescott: That is for me to know and him to guess. [Laughter.] There is constant reference to the incident that occurred during my election campaign, but I thought that we had finished Punch and Judy politics here. I know that I will be called Mr. Punchwhat does he think that that leaves him as? [Laughter.] I have to say to him that he did lose that election, and a great deal has changed since he was last on the Front Bench. What has not changed is that I am on this side in government and he is on the side of the losers. That was the result of that election, and we will continue to be successful at introducing the economic prosperity, social justice and economic stability that no other country has been able to match. I am quite proud of that. I might say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is a very good example of the fact that the election of a Labour Government means great personal prosperityfor himself.

William Hague: Can the Deputy Prime Minister honestly tell the House that the Government can seriously deal with the problems facing the country when we have a Prime Minister who says that he will not go until the NHS is fixed and a Chancellor who will not even mention it in his Budget, a Prime Minister who wants an end to pensions means-testing and a Chancellor who is introducing more of it, and a Prime Minister who wants to reform public services and a Chancellor who is a roadblock to reform? Is it not time that the country knew who was running the Governmentthe man smouldering next to him or the man in the departure lounge on the other side of the world?

John Prescott: I think that the right hon. Gentleman must know about divisions in his own party. I am not conceding that what he said is right. His judgment is questionable, as I have already said. I can remember him 30 years ago when he was just 16a little Rotherham lad speaking at the Tory party conference in 1977. I remember him saying what life would be like if Labour was in government in 30 years' time. He will recall that he said that. Well, to coin a phraseHave I got news for you? We are here with low mortgages, low inflation, 2 million back at work, a national minimum wage, and 800,000 kids lifted out of povertythat is what happened with a Labour Government in 30 years' time. I will tell him somethinghe can have that speech for free.

Eric Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 1.3 million people who will receive a pay rise in October and the historically high levels of employment in Falkirk and across the country show that the national minimum wage is fulfilling its function precisely?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The latest increase in the minimum wage will benefit around 1.3 million workers, 66 per cent. of them women. Of course, hon. Members will be aware of the sustained growth, with more than 2 million extra people in employment than in 1997. We continue to support those who get paid the least, despite Opposition spokesmen having told us that the minimum wage would cause mass unemployment. It did not. We got the minimum wage and high levels of employment. The Low Pay Commission shared our aim; that is why we have accepted its recommendations. I am proud that this Labour Government introduced the minimum wageone of the founding goals of our party and the reason why we can say that economic prosperity and social justice go hand in hand. That is an important part of the policy that has been pursued by this Government.

Daniel Kawczynski: When the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister came to Shrewsbury in 2000 during the terrible flooding, they promised that Shrewsbury would be protected from flooding in future. So far, only a tiny area around the council offices has been protected. I have two questions: first, when will the right hon. Gentleman fulfil the pledge to Shrewsbury; and secondly, when will he return the wellington boots that he borrowed from the Environment Agency locally, because he has still got them?

John Prescott: No, I have not got them and I do not know what happened to them. I think that that is a little story that the hon. Gentleman picked up along the way.
	I visited Shrewsbury along with many places that had been flooded. We increased the amount of money for flood protection to 500 million. It was far less under the previous Administration. As to where and who built the defences, the Environment Agency determines the most dangerous points, for which greater protection is needed. I do not know whether the council office is one of those points. We have provided the resources and, when flooding last occurred, Shrewsbury was pretty well protected from what had happened previously. I therefore think that we have done well.

Jim Dobbin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposed restructuring of health services in the Pennine acute services area, which will mean the withdrawal of special care baby units, maternity and children's services from the people of Rochdale, Bury, Rossendale and other parts of east Lancashire? Does he agree that that is unacceptable and that the reconfiguration should be reviewed?

John Prescott: I understand that the proposals for the changes in the children's services in the area are part of a wider review, about which my hon. Friend knows. That review is currently in consultation until 1 May. I am sure that his views and those of the local population will be taken into account during that process. I know from my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency how active he is on behalf of his constituents and I am sure that his voice will ring loudly in the ears of those who make the decisions.

Deepcut Review

Adam Ingram: On 15 December 2004, I informed the House that I had commissioned a review into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four young soldiers at Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut, during the period 1995 to 2002. As I told the House then, I was aware that its scope and nature may not satisfy all those, including hon. Members, who have been calling for a formal public inquiry into combat deaths in the armed forces, especially the four deaths at Deepcut. I said that by concentrating on the circumstances of the four deaths, the review would focus on the issue at the heart of current public concern.
	The review has been undertaken by the distinguished human rights lawyer, Mr. Nicholas Blake, QC, and is now complete. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This morning, the families had the benefit of a briefing by Mr. Blake on his conclusions. I know that this will be another difficult day for them; the passage of time, in such sad circumstances, does little to lessen the pain. I hope that they will find at least that Mr. Blake has addressed carefully and sensitively the questions that have troubled them. I acknowledge the dignity with which they have conducted themselves over this long period.
	I am grateful to Mr. Blake for the thorough and professional way in which he has approached his task. In conducting his review, he has had the full co-operation of the Ministry of Defence. He has had full and unrestricted access to our records, and all serving and retired soldiers were encouraged to help the review in any way they could. I am satisfied that the report, which runs to 416 pages, plus annexes, represents an independent, objective and comprehensive analysis of all matters that have a bearing on the four deaths, and that Mr Blake has not been constrained by his terms of reference. Importantly, he has been able to tackle the wider issues.
	There were three issues about which much comment had been made on events at Deepcut: the alleged suspicious circumstances of the deaths, a claimed culture of bullying and the need for a formal public inquiry. I am pleased to note that Mr. Blake makes substantial findings on all three points. First, he has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the deaths of Sean Benton, Cheryl James and Geoff Gray at Deepcut were self-inflicted. Given the recent coroner's inquest into the death of James Collinson, he understandably refrains from reaching any conclusion on that particular death. However, he comments that the opportunity for self-infliction was afforded by the policy of frequently assigning trainees at Deepcut to guard duty, unsupervised by experienced soldiers.
	The review found a number of factors that may have contributed to the trainees' unhappiness and may have made them more susceptible to self-harm. The review considers that,
	although the Army did not cause any of the deaths,
	there were institutional failures to identify potential sources of risk and subsequently to address them. On the question of bullying, Mr. Blake states that there is no evidence that any of the trainees were bullied to death. However, he accepts that some trainees at Deepcutprobably only a small minorityexperienced harassment, discrimination and oppressive behaviour. Those who did not complain appear to have had little confidence that the system could or would address their grievances. These are important criticisms, which will be addressed.
	Finally, on the question of a public inquiry, as I indicated in my response to the earlier House of Commons Defence Committee on this matter, I did not consider that a formal public inquiry was required. The Defence Committee was of a similar view. In a carefully reasoned examination of the arguments for such an approach, Mr. Blake has concluded that a public inquiry into the immediate or broader circumstances surrounding these deaths is not necessary. I reaffirm my earlier position and concur with his conclusion.
	This review, taken alongside the other inquiries and inquests into the deaths at Deepcut, has set out with great clarity the circumstances of the four deaths and the context in which they occurred. We now need to move on and take forward the changes that are required. We accept Mr. Blake's conclusions and welcome the opportunity to address his recommendations. We accept that there have been shortcomings, and we will do all that we can to address them.
	Although the purpose of the review was not to attribute blame, Mr. Blake has described a disturbing catalogue of allegations of misconduct at the relevant times. The Army authorities will carefully examine the report to see whether there is any indication of professional misconduct or negligence that might make administrative action appropriate. In addition, any matters that suggest that a disciplinary offence may have been committed will be referred to the Royal Military Police for further investigation. We will also have to take into account the overall training environment in which our personnel were working and the constraints faced by those in the command chain.
	Mr. Blake understands the importance, particularly for the Army, of recruiting under-18s, but he has highlighted weaknesses with regard to their appropriate care. We are alive to that issue and we are improving the standard of care and support afforded to young recruits. For example, trainees' surveys have been established and a note of guidance for all commanding officers covering all aspects of working with under-18s has been produced. Furthermore, Mr. Blake particularly commends the specialist training regimes for 16-year-olds established at the Army Training Regiment, Bassingbourn, and the Army foundation college, Harrogate. However, there is clearly still more to do, especially in extending best practices such as those at these establishments, and we are committed to implementing such changes as far and as quickly as we can.
	The quality of our armed forces and the professional way in which they were, and are, meeting their operational commitments is evidence of the quality of military training, and I pay tribute to that without hesitation. The report describes the British Army as a unique and extraordinary institution. For the past decade or more, it has been sent on a wide variety of operational deployments in many parts of the world, involving great personal danger and regular personal sacrifice.
	The report notes that many of the young people who are, or were, accepted as recruits into the Army have had very challenging lives as children. A high proportion were from single-parent homes, some had left school with no qualifications, and many had deficits in basic skills. The report comments that it is a remarkable challenge to turn these young people into effective soldiers forming part of a disciplined and interdependent team. It is worth noting that Deepcut alone sent approximately 10,000 trainees into the field Army during the period covered by the review.
	However, the number of young people, particularly those under 18, that the services employ places particular responsibilities on us to recognise their potential vulnerability. We are committed to improving the way in which all our recruits are trained, developed and looked after. In view of that, and in light of the recommendations made in previous recent reports by the Defence Committee and the adult learning inspectorate, work has already been done, and continues to be done, to make changes for the better.
	As in society as a whole, bullying, harassment and other inappropriate behaviour can never be totally eliminated in the armed forces. However, it is essential that we establish an environment in which bullying is wholly unacceptable. At every stage of their training and careers, it is made very clear to personnel that bullying and harassment, in any form, is not tolerated, and that it is part of their duty, and a function of leadership, to eliminate it.
	It is a sad and unfortunate factagain, just as in wider societythat the armed forces will never be able to eradicate the tragic incidence of suicide or self-harm. However, the risks can be reduced to a minimum by careful management, pragmatic policies and better understanding, knowledge and education. As the Blake review makes clear:
	Every Officer, NCO, civilian instructor and trainee should be alert to any sign of abuse and be required to report it through the chain of Command, so prompt and effective action can be taken.
	The Armed Forces Bill, currently being scrutinised by a Select Committee of this House, contains proposals to streamline the complaints redress system, including provision for an independent element. Also, the Bill will consider aspects of the procedures applying to boards of inquiry. The review makes recommendations in those two important areas. We will give full consideration to those recommendations, and the Bill gives us the opportunity to implement any changes deemed appropriate.
	The report has identified areas in the training environment, especially between 1995 and 2002, that required improvement. It cites examples of inappropriate behaviour that should not have taken place. It also identifies areas where we can, and should, improve the way in which we manage the young people for whom we are responsible, and we accept those observations. We now need to look at every one of Mr. Blake's 34 detailed recommendations to see how they should best be taken forward to address the weaknesses identified as quickly and as effectively as possible. I also urge right hon. and hon. Members to take time to analyse Mr. Blake's report in full prior to forming their own opinions.
	Mr. Blake has given us a detailed and painstaking report of considerable substance. I am confident that it will provide further impetus for improvement. I can assure the House of my determination to deal with the issues that he has raised, and I undertake to provide a detailed formal written response to the House on all the recommendations. I am determined to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future.
	I have enormous confidence in the dedicated men and women working as instructors in our training organisation. I want to make sure that they have the support, the resources and the facilities that they need to pursue excellence. The trained young men and women they produce lie at the very core of how we deliver on the defence interests of this country. Their efforts have to be matched by commitment from the very top of the MOD.
	Mr. Blake concluded his report with his profound condolences to each of the families concerned. On behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I again add my condolences.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and for allowing us advance sight of it.
	This is a statement that all of us in the House wish had never been made necessary by events. It deals with complex and difficult issues. Above all, it deals with the very human tragedy of the death of four young people, whose pride in their endeavours is all too obvious from their photographs in the first four pages of the report. I reiterate my sympathy and that of my colleagues for the families, whose grief and sadness few of us will be able to understand.
	The issues are complex, because they require a difficult and sophisticated balance. On the one hand, the British Army needs individuals who will put themselves in the line of fire to protect us. That inevitably requires a robust and tough training programme, and a culture unlike that of civilian life. On the other hand, the Army has a duty of care to each individual under its command.
	As the Minister makes clear, social trends in this country have increased the number of recruits from broken family backgrounds, with poor academic achievement and, often, deficits in basic skills. That the Army is able to turn so many of them into world-class soldiers is something of which we should all be proud. Equally, however, we should be alarmed that the suicide rate of those under 20 in the Army is well above that in the comparable civilian population, and significantly worse than in either the Air Force or the Navy. That requires further academic research, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it is undertaken.
	The key questions are whether any of the deaths could have been foreseen, whether there was any cover-up or failure of investigation, and whether anything would be usefully served by a public inquiry. Let me deal with those questions in order.
	The factors that might contribute to individual deaths include the make-up and suitability of the recruits, their disciplinary and supervisory framework, and the physical environment in which their training took place. Let us remember that of the four recruits, Geoff Gray and James Collinson were under 18, Cheryl James was just 18, and Sean Benton had been described in hisrecords as having an immature personality. Additionally, both Sean Benton and Cheryl James had medical records of self-harm prior to recruitment. My questions to the Minister are whether or not there is sufficient profiling of potential recruits, how parents can be better involved in the recruitment interviews, and whether there should be automatic availability of NHS medical records prior to a recruitment decision.
	Next, there are major questions about the disciplinary and supervisory regimes affecting the four recruits. In all cases, the regime for unsupervised armed guard duty for inexperienced soldiers gave the opportunity to obtain a weapon, and to provide an isolated spot in which to use it. That breaks two rules in the duty of care to vulnerable individuals. In addition, cuts in the number of non-commissioned officers make the environment less secure and diminish the relationship with recruits. As a consequence, the trust in the chain of command to deal with grievances, including bullying and abuse, will diminish.
	There is one very specific issue. Can the Minister tell us how much he believes the indeterminate length of phase 2 training contributes to recruit dissatisfaction, and what the Government intend to do about it? The fact that all those failures occurred does not just represent a clear institutional failure on the Army's partworse, they had been highlighted for many years by individual commanding officers whose internal and external recommendations were often ignored or implemented too late. As the report produced by Colonel Haes back in 2001 states,
	the Army Training and Recruitment Agency does not have a coherent policy that can be costed and measured. The ATRA is failing in certain aspects as a result of reduction in the military workforce and increased obligations . . . the current situation is tenable only as long as there is no major incident or complaint.
	The physical environment at Deepcut also attracts considerable criticism. There was poor quality accommodation, especially in the case of sanitary and washing facilities. There were poor recreational facilities, leading to a restricted personal life, and a configuration of the camp that led to more frequent guard duties. The Minister must deal with those issues as a matter of urgency.
	While the report makes clear that there is no evidence of collusion or cover-up, or failure of investigation, it is essential that the Royal Military Police ensure that their investigative procedures are equal to the best practice in civilian policing. Although the report suggests that that is best done by its being brought within the regime of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, I think that we would be wise to consider whether a further incursion of civilian institutions into the Army would be more beneficial than an internal mechanism.
	Finally, there is the issue of a potential public inquiry. The conclusion reached in the report that,
	no new reliable evidence as to how the four trainees met their deaths is likely to be available
	is a powerful one. There are those who believe that a public inquiry is essential to restoring public confidence in the Army. First, I do not believe that the British public have a general lack of confidence in the British Army. Secondly, I believe that rather than dealing with any specific anxieties, such an inquiry would be likely to provide further scope for ill-informed speculation with the potential to damage both morale and recruitment. The Government must consider that extremely carefully.
	So what have we learned, and what do the Government need to do? We need better recruitment selection as a matter of urgency. We need training for NCOs so that they can understand and deal with specific vulnerable individuals. We need trainees to understand what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour from their superiors, and a grievance procedure whereby they are taken seriously. We must end the practice of guard duty being used as a punishment for trainees. To encourage future recruits and, therefore, future soldiers, both recruits and their families need to be confident that the British Army can deliver a culture of nurture and training, free from bullying and harassment. For this, proper supervisory ratios are crucial.
	Ultimately, the British Army must learn from the mistakes that it made in these terrible tragedies, and ensure that the self-sacrifice referred to in the military covenant is met by an equal duty of care from the institutions of the Army itself.

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments, and it seems that we are more or less on the same territory regarding our analysis of what needs to be done. He will appreciate that this issue goes back to 1995, when substantial changes were made that undoubtedly impacted adversely on the training pipelines' capacity to deliver. As ever, it takes time to turn such a situation around. We have been under constant examination and there has been a constant process of renewal and investment. Each time, we must ensure that what we do has an effect. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be wrong to rush to a judgment or a solution; we have to make sure that our efforts deliver.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of specific points, but I take issue with his analysis of the suicide rate. I do not want to debate statistics, other than to make two points. First, one death is one death too many, but he was right to point to the increase in the number aged under 20 who committed suicide, or for whom an open verdict was recorded following an inquest. Secondly, for those aged 19 and under, the standard mortality ratio was significantly high during 1989 to 1993 and 1994 to 1998. However, for the period 1999 to 2003, the ratio, although still high, was not statistically significant. As I said, I do not want to trade statistics, and one death is one death too many, but let us not over-extend the analysis.
	The hon. Gentleman made a very good point about the need for medical profiling and the involvement of parents. Mr. Blake's report is very clear on these issues and we already engage very closely with parents. Anyone who cares to visit a training establishment will see the joy on the parents' faces. As the hon. Gentleman said, even at those locations other than Deepcut that have been criticised, parents are delighted to see how the Army has turned their sons and daughters into members of society of whom they can be proud. However, more needs to be done and we need to make use of medical profiling. We need the best analysis of those who are coming into our care.
	On phase 2 and soldiers awaiting training, the statistics show that improvements have been made. The number of soldiers awaiting training for more than 14 days each month has reduced by 59 per cent. across the Army, and by 45 per cent. at Deepcut. We are alert to the gap between phases 1 and 2to what could happen in between if such soldiers are not given attention and gainful employmentand we are seeking to make improvements.
	On the Haes report, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if Colonel Haes visited the training establishments todayas the adult learning inspectorate does, both announced and unannouncedhe would find an entirely different regime. It is not perfect and it does need improving, but some substantial issues have been addressed.
	I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Royal Military Police, and we are alive to this issue. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will run a slide rule over the RMP's special investigations branch, which is at the critical end of the investigative capacity, to make sure that the RMP meets the very high standards that have been set. That is not to say that it does not already do so; the RMP is already audited and examined frequently through case review. It has high standards, and it meets the high standards expected of the civilian police, but there are lessons to be learned, as ever. Even in respect of the civilian police, we must constantly examine what is being done in our name.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to guard duty being used as a punishmenta critical issue with which the report deals. Mr. Blake makes a very powerful and potent point about guard duty, which is under review. Indeed, we have made considerable progress. No under-17s are involved in guard duty and we are increasingly employing civilians to carry it out. It is proving difficult to recruit people to take on this job in the areas where establishments are located, but we have invested considerable resources and we are trying to build capacity. Over time, that type of guard duty will no longer apply. Its use as a form of punishment is under review, and my guess is that it will not continue.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Minister for advance notice of his statement and for the opportunity to go into the Ministry of Defence this morning to read the report on these tragic events. I echo the condolences expressed to the families concerned.
	The Minister made only an oblique reference to the review's recommendation 26, which I consider the key recommendation. It states:
	There should be established a Commissioner of Military Complaints (the Armed Forces Ombudsman) independent of the 3 services.
	The Minister said that he will give further thought to that proposal, which is of course supported by the Defence Committee. Does the Ministry of Defence's own Army survey not show that a staggering 85 per cent. of soldiers say that there is bullying in the Army, and that in the past 12 months more than a quarter of soldiers had lodged complaints and were not satisfied with the way in which they were handled? The review notes that independent commissioners work well in the Australian and Canadian armed forces, and that commanding officers here said that they could see no difficulty with the idea. I therefore urge the Minister, even at this stage, to use the Armed Forces Bill to introduce that sensible recommendation.
	The UK is the only European Union country to recruit 16-year-olds into its armed forces. Does the Minister agree with recommendation 12.48, which states that the expense of improving the regime for young people in the Army is the
	necessary price to pay to be permitted to recruit
	them? What action will he take on the review's recommendation that young recruits should be in an environment dedicated to their needs, and that, in the case of 16-year-olds, such an environment should be exclusive to that age group?  Is it not clear that, as the review and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's report have found, accommodation and facilities for single people in the Army are profoundly unsatisfactory, and that they certainly were at Deepcut?
	Will the Minister act on the review's recommendation 12, which states
	that instructors should be vetted for suitability to work with young people, in a way no less vigorous than in civilian establishments?
	Given the allegations of abuse in the report, is that not vital?
	Finally, is it not vital that Surrey police implement recommendation 33, which says that they should disclose all the papers from their investigation to the families of the deceased so that they can decide whether to press for fresh inquests or, indeed, to renew their call for a public inquiry? Will Ministers implement the proposal that the Royal Military Police be brought within the regime of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, so that it can apply best practice and determine whether the RMP is sufficiently well resourced? That did not appear to be the case at the initial Deepcut inquiry.

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the general tenor of his remarks. He has touched on some key issues, and he should be aware that the establishment of an ombudsman is a subject for the Armed Forces Bill. In the light of the Defence Committee's comments and of our own conclusions on what is desirable, we have come up with a set of measures that we think will tackle this issue. However, Mr. Blake has examined it in detail and made a recommendation, so it is only proper that we consider it. I must point out that the Liberal Democrats have a representative on the Armed Forces Bill Committee

Robert Key: They have two.

Adam Ingram: Yes, two, but they did not attend when the matter was discussed this morning. However, I do not want to dwell on that.
	On complaints, Mr. Blake found that the culture was that people were not prepared to make complaints, because they went nowhere. We have sought to address that problem in the Armed Forces Bill, and edicts on the problem have gone out to everyone involved. We have taken the matter on board, and I accept Mr. Blake's conclusion that everyonefrom the most senior officer right through to recruitsmust take responsibility. That concerns not only those who feel that they have been harassed or bullied; anyone of any rank who witnesses such incidents should report them. That is the sort of culture that we want to instil in people. It is an important matter, we are alert to it, and Mr. Blake places great emphasis on it.
	The question of young recruits cannot be avoided. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) agrees with the conclusions that the Government have reached on the matter, but the main Opposition party does. We consider it proper to continue to recruit people younger than 18, although there is no time today to go into all the reasons, and it is clear that we have a duty of care for those young people. Significant success has been achieved at Bassingbourn and Harrogate. We must take account of best practice, but implementation has resource implications and cannot happen overnight.
	That leads to me to the question of single-living accommodation. We are aware of the need to give young recruits more freedom to lead their own lives in the training establishments. I can therefore tell the hon. Gentleman that we are re-profiling our resource allocation to try to lift the spend on single-living accommodation.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about the vetting of instructors. We are constrained by the law in that regard, but with the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office, we are looking urgently for ways to ensure better assessment of instructors. The matter has implications across the whole education sector, and beyond. We need better ways to capture information about those who may put young people, and others, at risk.
	The hon. Member for North Devon asked about the recommendation relating to the Surrey police. That is amatter for that force, but I hope that the recommendation is taken on board, as I think that it will be a substantial help. The coroner's inquest into the death of James Collinson was conducted before a jury, and all the relevant issues were ventilated. That is the key and, although it was not the case with the three earlier inquests, that is not a matter for the MOD. It is for the families to decide whether to take legal action to reopen the inquests, and I agree with Mr. Blake's recommendations in that regard.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has a great deal of business today. I appreciate that this is an extremely sensitive subject, but I still hope that questions can be brief. I can then try to call every hon. Member who is seeking to catch my eye.

Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that many families who lost children at Deepcut and elsewhere are very disappointed that the Government have again rejected a public inquiry. However, I chair the all-party group on non-combat deaths, and I welcome many of the proposals that have been made. Will he elaborate a little further on the proposals in Nicholas Blake's report for independent oversight of such matters? Will the ombudsman have retrospective powers, and be able to set up inquiries on his own initiative? Is there any indication of the scale of the problem beyond the Deepcut perimeter fence?

Adam Ingram: The last time I looked, more than 1,700 families were involved in the Deepcut and Beyond campaign, and I agree with Mr. Blake when he says in his report that no public inquiry into all the non-combat deaths could ever be concluded, because every such death would extend the process. That is why, as I have made clear many times, we do not favour a public inquiry into these matters. It is not that we have no respect or feelings for the families but, for the reasons that I have given and more, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to go down that route.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) should not conclude that there will be an ombudsman and then ask questions about what that person would do. We have said that we will consider Mr. Blake's recommendations, and that we are looking at how we can introduce an independent non-military presence into the complaints procedure at the higher level. That would give people a guarantee that they could seek redress from someone who was not in the chain of command. The Armed Forces Bill Committee is debating that at present, but we will balance that approach against what Mr. Blake has said. I shall also deal with the matter in my written response to the report.

Lembit �pik: We have discussed already the catalogue of misconduct in relation to Deepcut, but one member of the armed forces said:
	Sex was a passport for getting off all sorts of things, getting off duties, getting a long weekend at home.
	Does the Minister accept that such quotations show how serious the situation had become? Mr. Blake's report was created only as a result of pressure from me and from other parliamentarians, and from Des and Doreen James and other parents of the deceased? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that they are understandably suspicious when he says that there is no need to make any further investigations? Finally, does he agree that, in the interests of respect, it is right to postpone the final judgment about a full public inquiry until the parents have had the chance to review all the materials that Nicholas Blake QC says that they should have the opportunity to review? Then we can wait and see what they feel. The Minister would be giving nothing away by agreeing to wait for the parents to see that information, and to share their point of view, and he certainly would not be compromising his position by so doing.

Adam Ingram: I take that point, but one of the key issues was the demand for a public inquiry. The Defence Committee said that it would wait for the Blake review, but did not consider that a public inquiry was justified, given the known circumstances. I have given more than once the reasons why I do not support a public inquiry. Mr. Blake's review weighs all the legal considerations and all the aspects, and comes to the same conclusion.
	Mr. Blake says that the Army and Ministers have to make a judgment about whether more information would lay the issue to rest. My judgment is that a public inquiry would prolong the matter, and would not lead to a different conclusion. That is Mr. Blake's conclusion, and I am more than satisfied that he has looked at all the available evidence. We cannot allow individual families to have a veto. They have been spoken to and have expressed their views, but they may never be satisfied with the decision. Their point of view will differ from the judgment that a Minister will reach.
	I recognise the role that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has played in this matter. Mr. Blake's report is highly critical of the media's sensational exploitation of the events. Stories have been run that have had no substance, with no subsequent apology for the fact that they were wrong. None the less, I accept Mr. Blake's recognition that the pressure that the media exerts forces further ventilation and examination.
	I wanted this report to be completed earlier, and Mr. Blake lists the many external factors that made that impossible. In the intervening period of 15 months, substantial changes in the training environment have been introduced or are now planned. The training regime has not stood still, and it will change measurably for the better in the months and years ahead.

Meg Hillier: I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me and other Members who represent the families of the young men and women who died to have sight of the report.
	When I met the Grays at their home last week, they were keen for a public inquiry, but one of their main concerns was that in their desire to reopen their son's inquest they did not have full access to the facts. Will my right hon. Friend, who has personally pledged to liaise with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, make sure that all necessary evidence is disclosed to the family of Geoff Gray and the other candidates? Has he completely ruled out a public inquiry into the way that Deepcut was run? I support the recommendation for an ombudsman. Does the Ministry of Defence have a timetable for looking into that issue?

Adam Ingram: The key issue is the recommendation relating to the Surrey police. I cannot instruct the Surrey police to do what has been recommended but, as I have indicated, I strongly support the view taken by Mr. Blake and we shall do all we can to ensure that it is imparted both to those who make the decisions at ministerial level and, most important, to the Surrey police. Of course, where there is confidential information, as may be the view of the Surrey police because of the nature of the witness statements they have taken, some matters may have to be deleted for legal reasons. Things have to be looked at in the round, but if there were access to that information it would help families who seek a reopening of the inquest into the deaths of their sons, in two cases, and their daughter, in the case of Mr. and Mrs. James. If that attempt was successful, which is not for me to determinethere would have to be judicial review or some other mechanismthe coroner would have to comply. If the inquests were reopened, there would be an opportunity to raise all those matters, because there is no restriction on where such an inquest could go. That would deal with my hon. Friend's point about the need for a public inquiry to explore what happened at the time of death. A coroner's inquest can do just that, so we are encouraging families to take that route, and they may now have better argumentation for doing so.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Minister for an early look at the report this morning. Although I acknowledge that Nicholas Blake stops short of asking for a public inquiry, he says that the one constituency that might have an interest in a public inquiry would be the Army itself. That comes on top of the words of the coroner at the Collinson inquest, Michael Burgess, who said that
	the MOD should take whatever steps are necessary to restore public confidence in the recruitment and training of young soldiers . . . including an inquiry held in public.
	If the only way to restore that confidence is to hold a public inquiry, and it is in the interests of the MOD to do so, will the Minister think again about a public inquiry?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has had a benefit that other Members have not: he has read the report, albeit in a restricted timebut he has misunderstood what Mr. Blake said. He does not stop short of calling for a public inquiry; he says that it is not necessary. He goes beyond that point.
	The hon. Gentleman should take time to understand the reportread it, analyse it and absorb the weight of its analysis. That is what I will do. I shall consider my response, but I have nothing to add to what I said earlier about having clarity in respect of a public inquiry. A judgment had to be made by Mr. Blake, and he has made it. A judgment had to be made by the Select Committee, which made it. A judgment had to be made by me and I made it. The Army took a similar point of view, which it expressed to me. It is not a question of a cover-up, but that there is a weight of argument in favour of not proceeding down that road. We know what went wrong and there may still be things that need to be addressed, but let us do so to ensure, I hope, that we can stop the recurrence of such tragic incidents in the future.

Michael Jabez Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to see the report this morning, as did other MPs, on behalf of Sean's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Benton. The report was comprehensive in terms of the evidence it reviewed, but it was a review and not an inquiry. May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention paragraph 2.71? It states:
	If Human Rights law required a public inquiry then this review cannot itself satisfy that obligation given the limitations placed upon itnor could an Army review.
	Paragraph 2.73 states:
	If material comes to light to suggest collusion in a killing or a cover up
	which has been suggested
	public confidence would demand a public inquiry.
	Although Mr. Blake comes to the view that no inquiry is required, he notes that it is up to the Secretary of State to make that decision if public confidence demands it. I believe it does. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Adam Ingram: Again, I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging that he has been given access to the report, but I suggest that he consider a longer time scale rather than alighting on one part of it and deciding that it leads to a certain conclusion. There is other argumentation in the report and the conclusion is that such a course was not necessary. Mr. Blake is a considerable and eminent human rights lawyer, who has weighed up all the informationfrom his perspective, not that of the Armyand come to that conclusion.
	My hon. Friend referred to suggestions that there was collusion or a cover-up, but there is no evidence of that. People may have such perceptions or feelings, but they have no proof. The report involved more than turning over pages of evidence. There was thorough examination of all the documentation. There were talks with witnesses who commented on the conduct of individuals and on the running of the training establishments as well as pointing out ongoing issues. Let us not diminish the review. It is a considerable report. Would more come from a public inquiry? I judge that it would not, and everyone else who has looked at the arguments in the round has come to the same conclusion.

Michael Gove: As the constituency Member for Deepcut, I thank the Minister and Nicholas Blake. I, too, extend my sympathy to the families, who have borne their suffering with such dignity. Does the Minister agree that since the period covered by the report, the Army in general and the leadership at Deepcut in particular have taken significant steps to improve training? Will he tell us the steps being taken to ensure that we train and retain experienced NCOs who can both prepare our young men and women for the rigours of the battlefield and extend to them a proper duty of care?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Our plans to lift quality are well under wayit is a question of getting the infrastructure in place. We plan to establish a leadership course, designed specifically to ensure that those entering the instruction regime and environment realise that it is an important part of their career development, which has not been the case hitherto. We are setting up another scheme for the Army, Train the trainers, which will roll out for the Air Force and the Royal Navy. Without question, we are homing in on that important ingredient. Those who carry out instruction duties are key to everything we do in delivering people capability and capacity for our armed forces. During the period of the reviewfrom 1985 to the present dayjust under 100,000 trainees have gone through that training environment at Deepcut alone. That is a mark of success, not failure, but there were weaknesses in the system and we are addressing them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how we can ensure that there is continuous improvement at Deepcut and elsewhere. The adult learning inspectorate is a fully independent organisation, which can make both unannounced and announced visits to the establishment, and it says that Deepcut has been transformed for the better. Mr. Blake's report includes a good quotation from a young trainee, who says that now people are mollycoddled, and cannot move without someone talking to them to try to find out what is in their mind and what they are up to. A balance needs to be struck, however, because we are trying to create independent people whom we ask to take on a unique task on behalf of our country. It is difficult for our military people to strike that balance, but they have achieved great success in the past and continue to be successful, as the hon. Gentleman is aware from his knowledge of Deepcut.

Kevan Jones: At the consideration of the Armed Forces Bill this morning, I introduced new clause 24, which would have established an independent complaints commissioner for the armed forcesI was not, I hasten to add, supported by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee, who were absent. After considering an interesting debate, and, obviously, waiting for Nicholas Blake's report at lunchtime, I agreed to withdraw the motion on the new clause. Can the Minister assure me that the independent oversight of complaints in the armed forces will be seriously considered as part of the Armed Forces Bill? Can he give us a timetable for such consideration, although I realise that doing so is difficult?

Adam Ingram: Again, my hon. Friend is close to that issue and has been raising it as a member of the Defence Committee. I am grateful to him for initiating that debate this morning. The issue must be ventilated and examined. I cannot dictate the pace of what happens with the Bill, but I guess that it must be addressed on Report, and if not, by the other place. We could then consider it back here again if necessary. It is for both Houses to decide what should be included in the Bill. We will give a very clear indication of what we believe to be right. Without question, what we propose goes a considerable way to address the issue; we have not fully debated it, obviously, but there is an independent presence within it. I will also make a written response on the basis of Mr. Blake's view, but that will be consistent with our view of the way in which the Bill should develop. Making that point is a substantial part of what we are doing at present. Let that debate now ensue.

Bernard Jenkin: Although I believe that the Minister's judgment is right in continuing to resist calls for a public inquiry, however painful and difficult that may be for the relatives of the men concerned, may I tell the Secretary of State for Defence that I cannot help but feel that there is still a gap in the procedures of the Ministry of Defence for dealing with very difficult and large questions of this nature, as I pointed out in a letter that I sent to the then Secretary of State some four years ago. Will the Minister consider establishing a more permanent procedure as a clear alternative to public inquiryperhaps, as I suggested then, a tribunal, chaired by a senior military officer from a different service, with a retired judge and a senior retired police officer, to conduct investigations and inquiries of this nature?

Adam Ingram: That is but one idea, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has argued for it in the past. I can consider anything in my response, and I will deal with the specifics of what Mr. Blake has said. I do not want to look at a range of other aspects, unless that is consistent with what we seek to do in the Armed Forces Bill. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity when that Bill returns on Report to table such amendments as he feels necessary, but I ask him to listen to the arguments that take place in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and consider them in a balanced and non-partisan way to try to find the best answers. There are very good arguments about why those in the chain of command should be respected in all this. They have the ultimate responsibility for the duty of care for those men and womenyoung and less youngin their care, because they are the ones who have to take them into those dangerous environments into which we send them. So let us not diminish what they do and their responsibility for the people whom they have under their care.

Mark Durkan: I will not take too much of the House's precious time today to dwell on disagreement about a public inquiry. However, the Minister has enjoined Members to take time to analyse the report in full before forming our own opinions. Will he assure us that if we do so, and if we approach him on a cross-party basishe is aware of the nature of the cross-party campaign to datehe will be receptive to those reflections, particularly where they are informed by the views of the families?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend knows me from my time in Northern Ireland, and we are always prepared to look at cross-party and individual party submissions to find the best solution. So the answer is yes, but I simply cannot undo the past; I can only try to make the present and the future better. I have compassion and deep feeling for those families, and I regret that aspects of what we were doingMr. Blake makes this clearmay have created a climate that resulted in those four tragic deaths. I have also said that, as has come out in the report, if individuals were in the wrong, we must examine that as well. There is no question in my mind about the depth and breadth of the report, and I only hope that those who campaign do so objectively and on the basis of what is deliverable and achievable, rather than trying to paint us into the position of creating the perfect world. I do not have it within my gift to create perfection.

Simon Hughes: Given the worryingly high number of deaths in non-combatant activities in the past 25 years, does the Minister feel confident enough to tell the House today that in future, there should be no significant difference between the frequency of non-combatant deaths in the armed services and accidental deaths in the community at large? If he could give us that assurance about non-combatant deaths, or at least set out the measures that the armed services are taking to move in that direction, it would be a great reassurance.

Adam Ingram: Again, I do not think that I have that within my gift, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to examine a lot of those non-combat deaths. They can involve road traffic accidents, or people who are on duty in difficult circumstances that are not combat-related who have been killed in accidents, or because of mistakes by other people. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he does not accept that the armed forces are unique and work in different circumstancesand, without question, in extremely dangerous environments? He is not comparing like with like, so I do not think that I can answer that question in the way in which he asked it.

Sandra Osborne: Having visited one of the training establishments, I am aware of the improvements that are being made. I welcome the Minister's commitment to consider what further action can be taken in the light of the review, but does Mr. Blake deliberate on any case other than those of the four that have been mentioned, such as that of my former constituent Alfie Manship, who died in Germany some weeks after leaving Deepcut barracks?

Adam Ingram: Yes he does, at length. I know that my hon. Friend will look at all the conclusions. Indeed, that is one of the issues that I referred to earlier in which the sensational press reporting of certain aspects was not found to be accurate. I know that my hon. Friend will closely examine the report and that the family, whom she represents, will also look at it, and it will help them and my hon. Friend to understand the totality of that circumstance.

Mike Hancock: The Defence Committee report found that the real failure was that of the Army chain of command to respond either creatively or purposefully to the various reports over the past seven years. That failure of command, which was not recognised by anyone in the Army, led to the ongoing situation. It is still amazing to me that the two commanding officers have still yet to give any public account of what they did in response to the circumstances that they found. I would be interested to know whether the Minister feels that Mr. Blake has ruled out a public inquiryI do not think that he hasand surely the Secretary of State for Defence should have an opportunity to review his decision on a public inquiry once the parents have had the advantage of having had the report for some time, and all the information available from the Surrey police.

Adam Ingram: I repeatI do not know how many times I have done sothat Mr. Blake has ruled out the need for a public inquiry. He says that it is not necessary. I do not think it appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to try to particularise his comments against two commanding officers. It is almost as if he is saying that they are guilty before any other examination. I understand that both of them met the families involved at the time. There has been a very close public examination by the people who were critical; in itself that may not be sufficient, but Mr. Blake and others have done everything that they can. I have met the families in different circumstances, either individually or collectively, to try to talk through some of the issues, and I will continue to do so. Everyone should know that there is a need for clarity. Fudge and uncertainty are not the way to deal with this matter. I make this plea to the hon. Gentleman: he should use his own faculties to consider how best we should address the present and the future. We are trying to address the past, but we must also address the present and the future, because of the tens of thousands of young men andwomen who are still going through those establishments.

Graham Stuart: I join other Members in thanking the Minister for his statement. As he will be aware, 19 non-combatant deaths took place at Catterick garrison between 1995 and 2001 in the infantry training section alone. Many parents, including my constituent, Lynne Farr, whose 18-year-old son Daniel died at Catterick in 1997, feel that those deaths cry out for some form of inquiry, but the Minister has been quite clear about that today and we all welcome the depth of thought that he has obviously given to the issue. Will he take a personal interest in ensuring that grieving parents whose children have died are kept informed of the steps that will follow the Blake report as issues develop?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. We recognise that there are non-combat deaths in other areas. I gave the figure of the more than 1,700 families that would come into the ambit of this particular campaign. Lynne Farr is a formidable woman and she argued her case very well. We are considering ways in which she can use her experience as a mother who has had to deal with such tragic circumstances to assist us, and how best to deal with other parents who find themselves in those circumstances. That will be difficult for her, but she is capable and willing to help.
	The other element is to make sure that our relationship with parents who have young people at those training establishments is such that they are fully aware of everything that is happening through that process. There should not be any barriers to their understanding. We recognise that having parents on side is critical. Much of our welfare supportand the way in which we are seeking to address thingsenvelops the parents if they want to be engaged in the process. We must remember, of course, that once the young person is over 18, they are an adult and so there is a balance concerning who has ownership of that person's future. These are very difficult issues, not just in military training establishments, but in life generally, as well. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

BILL PRESENTED

Housing (Council Tenants and Leaseholders)

Simon Hughes, supported by Lynne Featherstone, Tom Brake, Mr. Edward Davey, Susan Kramer, Paul Holmes, Mr. Mike Hancock, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Dan Rogerson, Mr. John Leech, Mark Hunter and Lorely Burt, presented a Bill to make provision with regard to the rights and obligations of council tenants and leaseholders; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed. [Bill 163].

Point of Order

Mike Hancock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In his reply to my question on his statement, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) alleged that I was making some sort of allegation against the two former commanding officers. My point was quite clear: it was that both those officers have yet to give a public explanation of their actions following the deaths that occurred while those young people were in their charge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is not raising a point of order; he is simply trying to continue the argument. There are other ways in which he can pursue matters of that kind.

Prevention of Scalding Injuries (Bathing in the Home)

Mary Creagh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the installation in homes of thermostatic mixing valves to set bath tap water temperature to a maximum of 46 degrees centigrade; and for connected purposes.
	I would like to tell the House a story about a little girl called Holly Devonport from Wakefield. Holly was five years old when she suffered scalds to more than half her body. Her mother, Julie, was running a bath and went to get a fresh towel. Holly was perched on the edge of the bath, playing with her Gameboy, and in the split second when her mother left the room, she slipped and fell in. Her mother said that when she pulled Holly from the bath her legs looked like they had been dipped in acid. Holly's agonising injuries meant that she endured a seven-hour operation to graft skin from her stomach on to her legs. She spent six weeks in Pinderfields hospital in Wakefield and six months in a wheelchair. She missed four months of school. She will be scarred for life. I know that many hon. Members in the Chamber met Holly and her mother yesterday and I am grateful to them for their support.
	Holly is now 10 years old and yesterday she and her mother came to this place to launch the Hot Water Burns Like Fire campaign. The campaign is backed by Age Concern, the British Burns Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the Children's Fire and Burn Trust, Help the Aged and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. They, and I, want to make sure that what happened to Holly does not happen to another child.
	Unfortunately, what happened to Holly is happening to another child every single day of the year. Some 600 people a year suffer severe injuries from scalding hot bath water and three quarters of them are children under five. Fifteen pensioners a year die from burns that they receive from bath water. Why are pensioners and children the most vulnerable to scald injuries? The answer is because their skin is thinner and burns more quickly. Also, as any parent of a toddler will know, children have less perception of risk. Pensioners have less physical ability to deal with dangerous situations.
	I have heard stories of children dropping toys into the bath and going in to get them and of pensioners getting cramp in their legs while topping up their baths with hot water. Someone e-mailed me this morning to share the story of her mother, who was due to go to a wedding and who was staying in a hotel. She turned on the hot bath tap and was scalded to death by the hot water. She went into burns-related shock. A person might have an epileptic fit, a heart attack or a stroke. They might drink too much or be on drugs and pass out in the bath. Those are everyday accidents, but they have extraordinary and catastrophic consequences for the individual.
	My Bill would change the law so that thermostatic mixing valves, or TMVs, are fitted in all new and refurbished homes. Those valves would set the bath tap water temperature to a maximum of 48 C and it would emerge at about 46  C, depending on the water pressure elsewhere in the home. Let me put those temperatures in context. At 66 C, hot water burns through skin in two seconds. At 56 C, it takes 15 seconds. At 46 C, the temperature at which the valves would be set, it takes five minutes. If Members measure their own scalding hot baths they will find that the temperature is about 40 C. Nobody can sit in a bath at 46 C, but that temperature would allow people to buy time. I pay tribute to the district council in Wakefield, which, as far as I can establish, is the only council in the country to install the valves as standard across all its housing stock.
	Legislation requiring homes to have TMVs comes into force in Scotland in May. Similar legislation has been passed in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Why can we not do the same in England, Wales andNorthern Ireland? We have an opportunity approaching. I understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are about to launch a joint public consultation on building regulation G, to look at water-saving devices in bathrooms and water fittings in bathrooms. I plead with the Minister to widen the scope of that consultation to include the installation of TMVs. I thank him for taking the time to meet me earlier this week and I would be grateful if he would meet me later to talk with the representatives of the campaign leaders and the organisations involved about the nature of the injuries that they see.
	There may be shouts from the tabloids about the nanny state. There were shouts when we banned hairdryers from bathrooms, put fuse boards on electrical circuits, and passed laws to protect people from carbon monoxide poisoning from gas boilers. Dr.Keith Judkins, a consultant anaesthetist from Wakefield, told me yesterday that a scald over more than one fifth of one's body has the metabolic impact of being hit by a bus. It causes huge changes in the body's chemistry, which can be life threatening. People can go into burns shock.
	If the human consequences do not convince people, let us consider the economic and environmental costs. It costs 80onceto buy a TMV. The lifetime cost to treat one scalding injury is 250,000. In one year, with TMVs, we could save 150 million for the NHS, and a lot of toddlers and pensioners a huge amount of suffering. In these days of rising gas prices, it simply does not make sense to superheat bath water and then mix it with cold water.
	I am sure that all Members had a thermostat fitted to the showers that they used this morning. Nobody even thinks about thermostats on showers, but, for some reason, there is an incredible resistance to fitting them on bath taps. I doubt whether there is a person in the House who can say that they have not fallen asleep in the bath. Bath time should be about bubbles, ducks and funeven at our age.
	Baths should still be hotbaths will still be hotbut, most importantly, baths should be safe. Hot water burns like fire. Hot water burned Holly Devonport, to use her mother's words, like acid. This year, 400 children will suffer what Holly endured. Are we really saying that that is the best that we can do for our children? We live in the 21st century. Thermostatic mixing valves were invented 80 years ago, so what are we waiting for? Let us act now to amend the building regulations and save lives so that we can all enjoy safe, hot baths.

Peter Luff: I will be brief because the House has a busy day. I pay tribute to the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke to her Bill. I should say, for the record, that I have never to my knowledge fallen asleep in the bath. The shower that I had this morning did not have a thermostatic valve, and nor do any of the showers in either my flat in London, or my house in Worcestershire. While I respect the hon. Lady's sincerity, I simply ask her to reflect on whether the Bill might be a step too far. Ten-minute Bills are useful to raise awareness of important issues. I introduced such a Bill for that purpose some 10 years ago with great success. However, I hope that the hon. Lady might be persuaded to leave it there.
	Let us get the matter in some perspective before deciding which of us is right. I am told that of some 100,000 burns injuries, scalding accounts in total for some 2,500, and about 2,000 of those cases are minor. I accept that it is a problem if there are 500 serious scalding injuries. We often talk in the House about the nanny state. Such phrases in the political lexicon are perhaps used too often and their overuse can lead to their devaluation. However, when the House considers such matters, it must reflect carefully on the point at which individuals must take personal responsibility for their actions and when politicians should tell people how to behave.
	I accept that the hon. Lady has made a powerful case for vulnerable people using thermostatic valves for their baths. I would prefer a scheme to assist vulnerable people to access such valves so that risks were minimised. There are many wrongs and problems in the world, but they cannot all be answered by political intervention, and my suspicion remains that we are considering such a problem. An intervention made by the House must be proportionate to the problem that it is trying to address and must genuinely protect the freedom of others. The Bill, well meaning though it is, fails both tests.

Stewart Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Luff: I do not think that I am procedurally allowed to give way during a speech on a ten-minute Bill. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
	I listened, as many hon. Members would have done, to this morning's Today programme and heard the gloriously flippant responses received from many listeners. I heard the voice of John Humphreys rising with incredulity as he presented the piece. However, there are serious issues to consider. After a long day out in the countryside in the winter, it is my preference to relax in a long bath. I let a bit of cold water out and put a lot more hot water in so that I can have a half-hour bath, rather than a five-minute bath. Baths are not just for cleansing, they are also for therapy, and I suspect that the Bill would get in the way of the liberty that I enjoy.
	The issue is important, and I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Lady has raised it. It is often said that the state should keep out of the bedroom, but it is my view that the state should keep out of the bathroom, too. Frankly, the idea deserves a cold bath, although I give a warm welcome to the spirit in which the hon. Lady raised it.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mary Creagh, Sandra Gidley, Mr. David Blunkett, Mrs. Sin C. James, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, Dr. Ian Gibson, Alan Simpson, Mr. Stewart Jackson, Mr. Sadiq Khan, Mr. Robert Walter and John Bercow.

Prevention of Scalding Injuries (Bathing in the Home)

Mary Creagh accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the installation in homes of thermostatic mixing valves to set bath tap water temperature to a maximum of 46 degrees centigrade; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 160].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Identity Cards Bill

Consideration of Lords message.
	Lords reasons: 22J and 22K.

William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have written a note to Mr. Deputy Speaker about the Bill as it stands and how it might be amended. It might be strange to raise this matter at such a late time, but it is in the nature of the exchanges between the Houses that it is possible that the amendments being applied could make the Bill a hybrid Bill. I say that with reference to the definition of the Speaker that a hybrid Bill is
	a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the reference from Erskine May, so we can save a little time because the hon. Gentleman need not read out the whole passage.

William Cash: I merely say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that however improbable it might seem at this late stage, differences could be created in the same category or class by virtue of the amendments that are being proposed and those that have been considered. On the general principle, it seems to me that hybridity could apply in this instance, but I would be grateful for a ruling.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman says, the matter has been brought to the attention of the Chair at a late stage. I am thus seeking advice and guidance and we will return to that point of order later.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 22J and 22K.
	This is the fourth time that amendments to remove the automatic linkage between designated documents and identity cards have come back to us from the other place and I very much hope that it will be the last time. The amendments were tabled by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who sits on the Cross Benches. I have high regard for Lord Armstrong, his commitment to the constitution of this country and his knowledge of history relating to it. I know that he was trying to help to reach a constructive conclusion by tabling the amendments. However, as I have said before, the moment has passed for discussing the principle of linking designated documents and ID cards, and it simply would not be possible for the Government to accept a complete opt-out for people who apply for documents designated under the Bill from the requirement to be entered on the national identity register and issued with an identity card.
	I understand the reasoning behind Lord Armstrong's amendments. As I have said before, I am grateful to him for trying to help to resolve the impasse that exists. However, while in theory an opt-out might well make more sense than an opt-in, the reality would be the same. We would still be introducing an unacceptably large degree of uncertainty into the plans for rolling out identity cards linked to passports.
	When the Bill returned to the House on 21 March, thedebate was essentially about the timing for implementing the requirement for people applying for a designated document, such as a passport, to register and obtain an identity card, rather than the principle of so doing. That was certainly the line taken by the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), although I have to say that he was more coherent than Lord Phillips of Sudbury in yesterday's debate in the other place when he made a mistake about a name. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for reminding me of a particular factor behind that, so I will not read the relevant part of Hansard, although I refer hon. Members to column 655.
	The line taken by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was very clear. He said that the amendments to be proposed by Lord Armstrong would
	blow a hole in the Bill[Official Report, 21 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 192.]
	The position of the Liberal Democrats throughout has been to use any device, however constitutionally doubtful, to destroy the scheme decided by this elected Chamber. I have no intention of accepting any changes that would have the effect of blowing a hole in the Bill, or damaging the delivery of the identity cards scheme as a whole.

John Redwood: Will the Home Secretary confirm that people are right in thinking that this is all part of an EU requirement to prepare for a common system across Europe, and that that is why he is in such a hurry to get rid of our liberties in this respect?

Charles Clarke: I am happy to confirm that that is total nonsense. There is no proposal either for an EU identity card or for an EU-wide card of any sort. As far as I am aware, there is no proposal on the table. What has been discussed in the EU is biometrics for passports and biometrics for residents' documents. That has been discussed not only in the EU but in countries throughout the worldespecially the United Statesas a means of helping people to travel more effectively. There is no requirement, and the canard, if I might use a Frenchism, that this is all an EU plotsomething that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes suggestsis not true in this instance.

Lynne Jones: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the lack of an EU conspiracy. However, will he comment on why the UK alone is going down the route of having a centralised data base and an audit trail, which is not in line with recommendations that are coming from Europe?

Charles Clarke: There are no recommendations coming from Europe on this matter so that the issue of being in line does not arise. The arguments for the Bill stand in their own terms. I remind my hon. Friend that they have been debated during the consideration of two Bills in this place and in the other place. They have also been considered on many occasions during debates on Lords amendments. However, the issue that my hon. Friend has raised is not the substance of the debate that is before us. My hon. Friend has been clear about her position throughout the debates and I have no criticism of that. I hope that she will now acknowledge, as an elected Member of Parliament, that it is time for the elected House to have its will and for unelected peers not to proceed as they are seeking to do.
	I have no intention of accepting any changes that would have the effect of blowing a hole in the Bill or damage the delivery of the identity cards scheme. Of course, I have read carefully what was said yesterday in the other place. I recognise that some of their Lordships realise that they cannot continue to delay the passage of the Bill, and that there has to come a time when the unelected House should bow to the will of this House.
	I was particularly struck that Lord Armstrong said that he would have no objection to obtaining an identity card when his passport came up for renewal. He said also that he thought that his amendment might form the basis for an acceptable compromise, possibly with the insertion of a time limit after which any opt-out would no longer apply. He went on to ask directly whether the Government would consider such a compromise. The answer that I have to give is that the Government are not being intransigent. If a different compromise were to be proposedone that was workableI would consider it carefully, as I have carefully examined a series of changes that we have made when considering how best to introduce this legislation.
	I realise that there are many in the other place who feel uncomfortable about the length of time during which they have defied the will of the elected House. They know that it is wrong that they are in that position. I realise also that some of their Lordships are trying to end the impasse. I will watch carefully what happens next.
	As I have made clear previously, the Bill will affect not only holders of British passports once these documents are designated. By about 2008 or 2009 we intend to start issuing biometric residents' permits to those foreign nationals who are temporarily resident in the UK. Without the requirement for designation and registration on a national identity register, foreign nationals will be able to opt out of the scheme completely. I believe that it would be entirely unacceptable if foreign nationals with those documents could opt out of registration, which would be the effect of the amendment that is before the House.

Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not.
	There is little more that I can say other than to suggest that at this time the other place should listen and recognise that the elected House, again today, will insist on retaining the requirement in the Bill for anyone obtaining a designated document such as a passport to be entered on the national identity register. I believe that the scope for further compromise is small, but I and my right hon. Friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal will be prepared to listen constructively to what is said when the Bill returns to the other place today, in the hope that it can at last pass on to the statute book.

David Davis: In the spirit of that compromisethe Home Secretary knows that I am always prone to compromiseI would like the right hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the problem that he sees with respect to foreign residents being cut out by the proposal made by Lord Armstrong. If we can resolve the issue, we might come to some conclusion on the matter.

Charles Clarke: As always, I am amazed, encouraged and even excited by the right hon. Gentleman's positive tone. The concern that I have, on the particular narrow point of foreign nationals, is that we are establishing the identity documentsin my opinion, rightlyand bringing them on to the national identity register. I understand the quasi constitutional objections of some in the other place to the idea that a British citizen should have an identity card whether they want it or notthat is the essence of their concernbut I do not believe that that concern should extend to foreign nationals under the schemes that operate. I am thinking about the protection of our borders. Occasionally, I see the comments of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden in the public media on such matters, to which he is deeply committed. That is one of the reasons why I think that the amendment from the other place is inappropriate. However, I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
	As I have said before, it would be inappropriate and a waste of parliamentary time, in my opinion, for the Opposition in the other place to force the Government into using the Parliament Act to enact the proposed legislation. I hope that we shall reach a conclusion today. I have made it clear that the Government will listen and reflect on what is said both here and in the other place. I have to repeat that the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 22J and 22K.

Edward Garnier: I hope that I can begin on an uncontroversial note in a debate on what has been a controversial Bill, and that is that the House must surely wish Lord Phillips of Sudbury the most speedy recovery from what I hope is a temporary illness.
	The arguments for the Bill, as the Home Secretary said, stand in their own terms. It seems that the arguments in favour of the Bill stand in an interesting substance, but I am not sure that its own terms recommend it.
	The Home Secretary would like us to believe that there is a huge constitutional wrangle between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, over which House of this Parliament should have supremacyus, the elected House, or the other House as the unelected and largely appointed House. I say in parenthesis that a large proportion of its Members have been appointed by the present Prime Minister.
	I would describe the dispute that we have in other terms: that it is a dispute between the citizen and the state. It is a dispute between truth and freedom of the individual and the power of the Executive. I would describe it

William Cash: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?

Edward Garnier: Even in mid-sentence, I give way to my hon. Friend.

William Cash: I do not want to cut my hon. and learned Friend short. Having said what he has just said, does he agree that it is not merely a question of battling with the Lords? The issue is fundamentally the constitutional point that he is making, which is the key to the answers to the questions that we are raising in these debates between the two Houses.

Edward Garnier: I agree. We are debating, both in this Chamber and in the other place, the fundamental relationship between the citizen and the state. If we upset that balance, which has evolved over centuries, we shall do ourselves and our electorates a disservice.
	I would not want to go over the arguments that we have had about the terms of the Labour party's manifesto at the last election. Those arguments are well known and they are clear. As I have said during previous debates, repetition never made a good point better. The point is there and it is one that the House can consider.
	I gently remind the Government that their earlier reliance on the need to have biometric passports was irrelevant to the earlier debates on the Bill and the setting up of the national identity register, and is even more irrelevant today, especially in the context of Lord Armstrong's amendments.
	Today, the Government can do two things. They can either stubbornly turn their face to the wall and ignore the helping hand that is proffered by Lord Armstrong or they can be sensible and realistic and accept it. I had an inkling from the Home SecretaryI was slightly put off by his over-excitement at the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), which I found a disturbing prospectbut I cast that aside. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary says from a sedentary position that he was dreaming about having a bath with my right hon. Friend. I will leave them to have those private discussions elsewhere.
	A door may have opened in the Home Secretary's mind, because he uttered the word compromise. That is a helpful step forward, because I did not think that that word could be extracted from his mouth. However, I would like more detailsI am happy to accept an intervention from himabout the terms of any compromise that he would find acceptable. In the past, he has set his face against proposals from the other place and the Opposition. If he is in the mood to mention the word compromise, perhaps he could tell us more about the nature of an acceptable compromise. In the meantime, as he queues with his towel outside the bathroom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden

John Redwood: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Edward Garnier: That queue appears to be growing.

John Redwood: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, while compromise may be a good thing, there can be no compromise over the principle of compulsion? We cannot accept a compulsory identity card in this Parliament, given the Government's position at the election and the strong sense among our constituents that we want freedom in this country.

Edward Garnier: I entirely agree, but I am trying to extract from the Government precisely how close to us they are prepared to move. The closer they move, the more likely they are to have their Bill not just before Easter but even tonight. We look forward to hearing their response either in the House or in the other place.

John Bercow: My hon. and learned Friend said that he did not want to rehearse previous arguments but, further to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), may I put it to him that each of these debates must be self-contained and intelligible to the widest possible audience? In seeking negotiation, it is highly pertinent to draw attention to the difference between what the Government have said today and what they said last May.

Edward Garnier: I accept that but, as my hon. Friend will know, Dickens wrote some of his greatest novels as part works. They were serialised before being brought together to form a whole. I hope that his interventions in our debates will form part of a great encyclopaedia of parliamentary occasions, so that at the flick of an internet switch anyone will be able to search his great works.
	I want to move on from our earlier debates, because last week, Mr. Deputy Speaker chided me for rehearsing that argument. Everyone knows my views on the Labour manifesto, and everyone knows what that manifesto says, so we can reach our own conclusions about the meaning of those English words. Lord Armstrong has sensibly endeavoured to find a way through that does not wreck the Bill and preserves a decent and proper balance between the citizen's rights and freedoms and the Government's necessary demands to realise their policy. His amendments are clearly not all that my party and I would want, but that is the nature of compromise. If the Government are prepared to accept our good will in supporting his amendments and if they are prepared to accept our genuine concerns about the rights of the individual as against the power of the state, I hope that they will conclude that Lord Armstrong's attempt to broker a deal between the two warring sides is certainly worth supporting this evening.
	Lord Armstrong's amendments provide a clear and simple solution that achieves fairness and justice, and which ought to commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House, whether or not we support the general principle behind the Bill and the establishment of the national identity register. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is in the Chamber, and he will know Government policy often appears to be made up on the hoof from day to day. Different announcements appear in the newspapers as the Bill is manoeuvred through the highways and byways of Government policy making. However, if the Government are confident that their policy is right, they should allow the public to prove their case by giving them the choice to opt out of registration on the back of designated documents.
	Both the Home Secretary and Baroness Scotland have accepted the thrust of Lord Armstrong's amendments by arguing that people can avoid compulsion by stealth if they renew their passports before the Bill in its unamended form becomes law. If they are prepared to advise the public to cheat to avoid the Bill's requirements, it is not logical for them to resist Lord Armstrong's attempt to bring light to this overheated debate. I urge the House to be adult about the matter so that at least we can put a Bill that is clear on the statute book. If we accede to Lord Armstrong's amendments we will, I accept, dissatisfy both sides of the argument but, presumably, we will achieve consensus, which gives the Government time to think and digest the quality of the arguments for and against opting out. Lord Armstrong's intervention in this affair is timely and constructive and it is certainly worth queuing outside the bathroom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden for it. I look forward to the Home Secretary moving quietly towards that upstairs room with his bath towel in hand.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that we have a little over 40 minutes left for this debate? Several Members wish to contribute, so I urge them to be concise.

David Winnick: May I say straight away that I am in favour of the Lords amendment, which is a sensible proposal? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept it, as Lord Armstrong has tried his best to find a solution. However, I must be frank and express some disquiet, as I am one of the few Members who is in a genuine dilemma about the issue. The Opposition parties have made it clear that they would be willing to accept the Lords amendments at the end of the day, and some of my hon. Friends take the same view. The large majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends support the Government regardless.
	While I accept the need for the Lords amendment, I reiterate what I have said on many occasions as a Member of Parliament: it is the elected Chamber that should decide. It would therefore be wrong, irresponsible and contradictory to say that, just because I share the view of the majority in the House of Lords, their view should prevail. Like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I am encouraged by the Home Secretary's suggestion that there is room for compromise. The last thing that I want to do is use the Parliament Acts, but if the Lords absolutely refuse to agree, it is likely that they will be used. I accept that it is right to use them for certain issues, but it would be inappropriate to do so on this occasion. I very much hope that, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary is willing to enter negotiationsif that is the right descriptionto achieve a satisfactory outcome and to ensure that the view of the House of  Commons prevails, whatever amendment or compromise is agreed. I do not think that we should be worried about compromise, as it is part of political life.

John Bercow: rose

David Winnick: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as I wish to heed Madam Deputy Speaker's advice about brevity. I shall cross my fingers and hope that compromise can be reached to prevent ping-pong throughout the day and night. Most of all, I do not want the Parliament Acts to be used. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used the word, and if he means what he said, I can only hope, like everyone else with doubts and reservations, that compromise will be reached today.

Nicholas Clegg: Last week I suggested to the Home Secretary that, if he rejected the amendments that were before us then, he would, as turned out to be the case, be facing the amendments before us today, which are arguably just as problematic from his point of view, because they would, as he explained, allow a wholesale opt-out from the need to register for an ID card. It remains my view that he would have been well advised to settle for the amendments that were before us last week. Even so, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary will put himself and us out of our misery and accept the amendments from Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.
	As the noble Lord said in the debate in the other place yesterday:
	My amendments would restore an element of voluntarinessof personal freedomwhich is absent from the Government's proposals,
	but that voluntarism, or voluntariness, as he put it, was entirely in keeping with the Government's oft-quoted election manifesto, where there was a clear emphasis on voluntarism in the introduction of identity cards, an emphasis which the Government have been so quick and keen to forget. As the noble Lord rightly said:
	There are a good many people out there who genuinely thought that the Government were proposing a voluntary scheme, and they were prepared to go along with it on that understanding.[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 651.]
	The Government have already conceded the principleit was a welcome concessionthat compulsion will occur only on the back of separate primary legislation, which makes it all the more inexplicable that they seek to reject amendments that would allow them to do precisely that and take a voluntarist approach in the early stages of the introduction of identity cards, to be replaced by legislation enforcing compulsion at a later stage. That is the Government's intention. That is what they have explained to us. The amendments do not disturb that plan at all; indeed, they are perfectly consistent with it.
	The other compelling reason why the Government would be well advised to support the amendments is that they would allow time to deal with the accumulating list of uncertainties about how the draconian ID database would work in practice. We still do not know how much it would cost, who would run it or how they would run it. We have heard conflicting messages about chip and pin features and biometric features, but we do not know what would be on the card.
	On Monday, we heard that yet another uncertainty had come to light. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) explained that some British citizens would have two identity cardsone listing theirnationality, which could be confiscated if the Government wished to prevent them from travelling, and another not listing their nationality, which they would retain while the other one was confiscated, to access domestic services.
	The written answer stated:
	However, to ensure that anyone subject to restrictions for an extended period of time can demonstrate their identity for domestic purposes, they will be able to obtain an identity card which will be issued to the same standards as other cards but which will not be valid for travel. This will be achieved by not specifying the nationality of the card holder on the face of the card.[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 758W.]
	We now know that we might have not one, but two identity cards, on top of all the other uncertainties that I have enumerated. This is a model of bad Government policy and bad legislation. It raises the question why the country is expected to accept the imposition of a scheme that we know is illiberal in principle and flawed and open-ended in practice. For that reason and many others, I hope that the House will support the amendments tabled by Lord Armstrong.

Mark Fisher: I feel that we are making very slow progress, but progress none the less, and I welcome that. I was delighted when the Home Secretary said this afternoon that he welcomed the positive tone being adopted.
	The Lords amendments are a huge compromise. Some of us have had enormous reservations and have battled on the issue for weeks and weeks. It is almost difficult to accept but, in the interests of compromise, we must accept the Lords amendments, which are well intentioned and seem to be the only way forward that has a chance of reaching compromise with the Government. The Home Secretary said this afternoon that he will listen. That, too, is a welcome development, but only if he listens to the debate and is prepared to accept some compromise, whether the one now on offer or, later in the day, some other. Otherwise, listening and adopting a positive tone will mean nothing.
	We have made some progress already this afternoon. For the first time, we have heard from the Government what the debate is not about. We had been led to believe that it was about us coming in line with an international network of information that would allow us to tackle international terrorism and international crime. It was interesting that the Home Secretary said today that Britain was not acting as part of an international network, nor in relation to any requirement from the EU. We are doing it for our Government's national reasons. There is no doubt that they have sincere reasons, which we have heard from the Home Secretary in previous debates. We have established today that the scheme will not help us internationally. It may help us inside Britain to deal with those matters, but it will not be our contribution to an international effort to tackle terrorism and crime. It is important that the Home Secretary has said that.
	The debate is also not about the so-called battle between the two Houses. I do not agree that this is a constitutional matter, and it should not be. That is a bad reason. Our Whips are undoubtedly putting pressure on Labour Members on exactly that basisSurely you cannot want to side with the Lords and obstruct the Commons. That is crude and represents a misunderstanding of our constitution.
	We are a Parliament made up of two Houses and both of them have the same job: to scrutinise and hold the Government of the day to account. We should be doing that in co-operation with each other, which is not to say that the House of the Executive, which is this House, should not have supremacy. I believe that it should, but supremacy through co-operation, argument and compromise, not supremacy because we are elected. That is a very good reason, but in my view both Houses ought to be elected. As soon as they are, and I would hasten that day, that argument will fall. Even after both Houses are elected, this Chamber should be the supreme Chamber because the Executive is located here. The House of scrutiny should be along the other end of the corridor.
	We are working on the same matters and, given that the job of both Houses is to scrutinise the Government, it is right and proper that, if the other House has doubts, it should express them and refer us to reconsider what we are doing and saying. There is nothing improper or unconstitutional about it. It is wholly constructive. The Lords are demonstrating the good faith of that constructive parliamentary attitude by coming up again and again with attempts to find a compromise. In this case, they have gone very far with amendments 22J and22K. Those are worthy of the Government's consideration.
	I hope that the Government will not seek to drive the proposition through now or later today. If they do, that would demonstrate that they were uncertain about their own case. They have good cause not to be confident. The Government do not trust the public to support an Identity Cards Bill that is truly voluntary. They have cited opinion polls showing that 70 per cent. of the public support identity cards, but the public do not know what will be in the register and do not understand it. When the public scrutinise the measure, I doubt whether they will accept a voluntary scheme. If the Government were really confident of their case, they would put it to the electorate and allow them to sign up or not sign up through a voluntary scheme. If they were persuasive and articulate, perhaps they would persuade the people of this country to sign up to a voluntary scheme.
	Everybody is against terrorism and everybody is against international crime. If the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister were to make a sufficiently passionate and articulate case, we would get what we should have, which is a voluntary scheme that the people of this country want to sign up to because they see it as a co-operative effort against crime and terrorism. However, the Government do not have that confidence in their case and do not think that the public will sign up.
	The Government are not confident that the country would support a compulsory scheme. If the scheme were compulsory, they would not be able to compel the public to sign up and charge them 90 or 100, in which case they would have to pick up the cost themselves. I do not think that the Home Secretary is confident that he can persuade the Chancellor to provide the 13 billion that the scheme will costthe figure is possibly greater than that. If the Chancellor had had to consider in his Budget whether to make cuts or to put up taxes to find that 13 billion, the Home Secretary would have received a very dusty answer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his comments not to the Budget, but to the amendments on the Order Paper.

Mark Fisher: I do not think that the Government are as confident about the view of either the public or the Chancellor as they have suggested. If they are not confident, and if the arguments that I have suggested carry any weight or merit, I beg the Home Secretary to find a compromise. Several compromises are possible, but the compromise that has come from the Lords today is very reasonable and represents a big step towards the Government. It certainly commends itself to me, so I shall support it, and I hope that it commends itself to the Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Earlier, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised a point of order, and I said that I would have the matter investigated, which I have done. I am satisfied that private interests, as defined for the purposes of hybridity, are not affected in a differential way.

Richard Shepherd: If reasoned argument were to prevail, the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) would see us through this day.
	As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has said from the Front Bench, this Bill is profoundly important. It challenges the very assumptions that many of us had about what being a British citizen is, namely the freedom to move around one's country not at the behest or let of the Government. The Government want to introduce a central data register, which seeks to look into the very depth and nature of the privacy of the citizen. That is territory that Britain has never faced before, not even through the wartime identity cards of the first world war or the second world war.
	The Government are seeking profoundly to change the nature of our relationship with our state. Who is the servant and who is the master? The Government assert that the state must be the master, and they are therefore challenging our very understanding of what is personal liberty and freedom. I have always argued that the essential character of the British constitution and of how we have developed through the long march of everyman is about freedom. This scheme contradicts that central, basic principle and understanding of who we are.
	The Government have called the ID card a voluntary card, and they have propelled that proposition on the basis that when one applies for a passport, it is, of course, a voluntary act. This is a trading nation, and the wealth and creativity of our people has been developed by engagement in the wider worldwe have sought markets, and we have seen prosperity arise from that. The Government are now saying that one cannot engage in the very basis of the livelihood of this nation without applying for a passport and having an identity card linked to a central register. I do not suppose that many of us have the luxury of being able to say that we will desist from international trade or engagement with the outside world, so the compulsion lies in the necessity of having a passport.
	The last time that we debated this matter, many of my hon. Friends asserted that we have a right to a passport, but we have no such thing. There is no common law that grants us the right to a passport, and there is no statute that defines the nature of citizenship. An article of the Canadian constitution firmly states the freedom of Canadian citizens to leave and enter Canada, but we have no such right, because it is a matter of the royal prerogative. That is what disturbs me, because it is almost a dictum of our modern constitution that we are all equal before the law.
	I shall pose this question, because I want to see the Government explore the nature of our state: is the Queen to have an identity card? She is, after all, a citizen of Europe, so why should she not? Must she now have a passportit is her prerogative, after all? Will the Prince of Wales be required to produce an identity card? I think that the Home Secretary should tell us straight whether we are all equal before the law. And why is the identity card linked to prerogative power?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think carefully. It is inappropriate for members of the royal family to be brought into this debate.

Richard Shepherd: Of course, I accept your view, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is an enormously important constitutional debate, and we are talking about the relationships between the citizen and the state.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are actually discussing Lords amendments rather than the wider context of this Bill.

Richard Shepherd: I do not mean to argue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the whole point of the debate and the Lords amendments is whether to introduce compulsion or discretion, and I was inquiring as to the extent of the compulsion or the extent of the discretion. I see that the Clerk looks agitated, so I shall leave the matter there. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Home Secretary were to address that narrow point. The wider point still remainsthe issue is effectively about compulsion. I do not find the Lords amendments especially attractive, but I shall vote for them. These two equal Chambers of Parliament[Interruption.] The two Chambers are indeed equal in our constitutional terms.
	We are debating the amendments, because they have been sent here from another place. The Government are threatening that if they do not get their way, they will invoke, if necessary, the Parliament Act. I will stand by the Lords amendments for the purpose of asserting the freedom of the individual.

Martin Linton: I rise to speak as an unashamed supporter of compulsion in ID cards. I was the first to suggest the idea of an entitlement card and it was always conceived not as a compulsory to carry scheme, but a compulsory to have scheme. I regret the fact that the Government have resiled from that position. However, I now hear the words voluntary and compulsory used in slightly different ways and there may be room for, if not a compromise, at least a meeting of minds.
	Lord Phillips, in the other place, and some hon. Members have described the Swedish ID card as voluntary. Indeed, the LSE document, which has been used as background by many hon. Members, also describes it as voluntary. Indeed, it is voluntary in an important sense, but it is not voluntary whether someone is on the identity register. People are placed on that at birth, and their national identity numbers include date of birth. However, if people have passports or driving licences, they do not also need to have an identity card, for the simple reason that the passport or driving licence can be used for exactly the same purposes as they might need a national identity card. It is voluntary in that sense

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Martin Linton: I am sorry, but we must all heed Madam Deputy Speaker's words of warning and we need to make our points in the short time that is available.
	Lord Armstrong of Ilminster is moving towards that sort of voluntary scheme, and I could happily live with that. Even Lord Phillips said that his amendment
	would have meant that the citizen had an optioneffectively, for five yearson whether he or she wished to have an ID card.[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 645.]
	If he means by that that one would be on the ID register but could choose whether to have an ID card, he should support the solution that is beginning to emerge. It is the ID register that is important, not the actual possession of a card.
	When my passport runs out and I have to renew it, I cannot see that it will make much difference if an ID card is thrown in as well. I shall be happy because it provides an additional form of identity. The point was made in the last debateit is central to the issue of voluntary and compulsorythat the information one gives to the Passport and Records Agency to renew one's passport is exactly the same as that required to go on the ID register. It consists of name, address, date and place of birth and nationality or immigration status

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Linton: No, I am sorry but we are all under a time pressure[Interruption.] If hon. Members look at the relevant schedule, they will see that it is those four pieces of information that are required

Edward Garnier: You do not understand.

Martin Linton: With respect, it is other hon. Members who have failed to understand the basic point that the information is the same, and it is the registers that are different. Indeed, the No to ID website requests people's forename, last name, house number, road, town, postcode and e-mail address. Even the organisation campaigning against ID cards requests very similar information from the people who log on to its website as that required for a passport or driving licence or by the ID register.
	My central pointI think that Lord Armstrong is moving towards itis that no compulsion should be attached to having the ID card, but people who renew their passports should have the same basic information duplicated on the ID register. I see no reason why we should therefore prolong the argument

Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Linton: I am sorry, but this is a one-hour debate. I consider myself lucky to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to make my points.
	The argument put by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the passport is not really compulsory has been widely mocked by people on the other side of the argument, but they must address the argument that if passports are compulsory, they are surely just as objectionable as ID cards. The ID card is no more than a passport to public services. It is a different form of passport, to be used in a different context. When someone wishes to obtain a benefit or open a bank account, they will not need to take their passport, which is a bulky document, because they will be able to use their ID card. It will work exactly the same as a passport does when crossing international borders. It will be a domestic passport and I do not understand why people object to one, but not the other.
	At the heart of this debate lies deep confusion about the words voluntary and compulsory. If people are prepared to go along with Lord Armstrong's approach and accept that the important aspect is not the card but the register, we can all find common ground on which to agree.

William Cash: I continue to be deeply concerned about the question of compulsion. It is still inherent in the principle of the Bill and I will not change my position on that. It concerns the relationship between the individual and the state, as the Information Commissioner said. The information that will be accumulated will not be changed by a compromise along the lines that are being discussed, although I understand the motivation for the compromise.

Edward Garnier: Is my hon. Friend also concerned that the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), who made the last speech that we endured, failed completely to understand the difference between the requirement for a biometric passport, so that the biometrics can be read by a passport officer at the port of entry, and an ID card, which provides the gateway into the national identity register?

William Cash: I could not agree more. The gateway is also the entry point for a form of compulsion that one would normally associate with countries that do not enjoy the freedoms of democracies such as the one in which we live

John Bercow: Common law countries.

William Cash: Indeed. The fact remains that this is an extremely important Bill. It is a very dangerous Bill, and much sophistry has been used by the Government in claiming the advantages of it. They have failed to understand how pervasive the state surveillance arrangement will be in practice and I am also deeply concerned by how it will differentiate between citizens. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned members of the royal family, but I am concerned about the ordinary man in the street and the differences in the timing of application. I have received a new driving licence and passport in the last week, because mine were stolen. Therefore, my exemption will extend until 2016.
	I accept your ruling on my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I understand it, but the principle that lies behind the issue of hybridity is not just a technical question. It is about treating people equally. The common law of this country should not contain one law for one section of the community and a different law for other sections. We apply the same principle in taxation. The constitutional question at the heart of this issue is not the difference between the two Houses, but the infringement on the freedom of individuals of this country and the differentiation between individuals who should be treated equally. I am utterly opposed to the principle of the Bill and will continue to be so.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend share the confidence of the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) that the new identity cards will contain only the basic information of the four items that he listed? Might they not also, without our knowledge, contain a lot of additional information about health records, bank details, whom we know and where we go? Who would have access to that information?

William Cash: I remain deeply worried about the ambit of the Bill and the powers that are being taken, which have recently been rather overlaid by much of the argument. There are powers in the Bill to make changes to the manner in which all these different requirements can be achieved.
	The plain fact is that for all the reasons that I have given, I remain resolutely opposed to the Bill. I am astonished, although I should not be that surprised, by the authoritarian attitudes that are characteristic of this Government and, regrettably, of some Labour Back Benchers. That authoritarianism is reminiscent of another socialistGeorge Orwell.

Nick Palmer: We have only five minutes left, so I will be brief.
	Members who are interested in this debate will acknowledge that I have a long-standing involvement in it. I put forward the proposal before the Government did, and I believe that it is a good one. I accept that we need to try to reach a compromise with the Lords, because it is an important issue and it is much better if we can take it forward in some degree of harmony. I should like to propose a compromise that would be acceptable to me and, I hope, to the Government and the Lords.
	Let me first explain what Lord Armstrong is trying to do, as I see it. He is saying that as long as the electorate have not explicitly voted for compulsory ID cards, it should be possible for people to get a passport without having to accept an ID card. We understand the logic of that. However, the amendment has some specific problems. First, it would result in the creation of parallel registers for the passport and the ID card, which would be very similar, if not identicalwe would need to debate that.
	Secondly, not everyone whom we would wish to accept an ID card would do so. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), it is not true that everybody is against terrorismterrorists are not against terrorism. Nor is it true that everybody is against crimecriminals are not against crime. If we have a voluntary scheme whereby people can say, No, I don't want to be on it, we know that in practice people of goodwill may or may not sign up, but those who are not of goodwill will say, very politely, No, thank youI choose to opt out. The law enforcement objectives of the Bill would be completely undermined.
	Finally, the electorate voted for us without scrutinising every line and comma of our various manifestos. I appreciate the role of Opposition Members as guardians of the Labour manifesto: perhaps they would like to stand for the party's national executive committee. The majority of our voters who took a view on identity cards simply want us to get on with it, and will be baffled if we wait until 2012 to involve a significant proportion of the population.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Palmer: I cannot, because of the time available.
	My compromise suggestion, which echoes that of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), is that we say that we accept[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will Members who have just arrived in the House please keep their conversations lower?

Nick Palmer: We should say that we accept that if people register for a passport, their entry goes on to the national identity register, but that we also accept that people can refuse to take an ID card for as long as it is voluntary. If the electorate later agree that the scheme should become compulsory, at that stage their entries will be on the register and all that we need do is to let them know that their ID card is now ready. We would not be compelling them to take the card, but merely moving forward on the register, which is essentially the same as that for the passport. It seems to me that that is a key objective of Lord Armstrong in trying to avoid the compulsory issuing of identity cards, and that it also achieves the objectives of the scheme in moving forward and giving us the chance to do what the electorate understood that we wanted to doto move forward with an identity card scheme.
	I hope that this has been a helpful contribution to the debate. I also hope that we are able to reject the amendment, because I honestly do not think that it would work, and that when it goes back to the Lords, they will accept the change.

It being one hour after commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [13 February].
	The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 251.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 22J and 22K disagreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Nick Clegg, Mr. Edward Garnier, Andy Burnham, Mr. Khalid Mahmood and Joan Ryan; Andy Burnham to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.[Joan Ryan.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5th July 2005 (as varied by the Order of 11th October 2005):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.[Mr. Watson.]
	The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 247.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19. If the House agrees to either of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1
	  
	Variation of leave to enter or remain

Lords amendment: No. 1

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 10, 20, 32 to 37, 39 and 40.

Tony McNulty: This group of amendments is a package that will allow all decisions to be considered in a single set of appeal proceedings. I am glad that we have been able to make those changes in response to sensible concerns and suggestions, while achieving the effective one-stop appeal system that we sought. All the amendments are Government amendments reacting to sensible points made during the debate. That has characterised proceedings on the Bill in both this and the other place. Some good discussion and debate has taken place around a range of serious matters, which have been dealt with clearly by Front-Benchers on the Floor of the House and upstairs.

Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony McNulty: If I may, I shall progress beyond the first paragraph before giving way.
	The amendments will restore an in-country right of appeal against a decision to curtail or to refuse to vary leave where the effect of such a decision is that the person in question has no leave to enter or remain. That is the case under existing legislation. That point was discussed at length in Committee and in another place.

Keith Vaz: I am sorry to have interrupted my hon. Friend before he gave us the good news. I welcome the fact that he has listened to those who have expressed worries about the proposals. Does he share my view that it is also important that the backlog of cases at the immigration appeal tribunal is dealt with as quickly as possible, so that people who appeal get quick decisions rather than having to wait a long time, thereby prolonging the delay?

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that that point bears no relation to this set of amendments, but I am more than happy to concur with the thrust of his remarks. We are making the system far more effective, through a range of measures, than it is currently.
	On the import of the amendments and the clauses to which they apply, we maintain that changes are needed to create an effective one-stop appeal system, with the caveat to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) referred about the original system. To facilitate that, we have created a power to make a removal decision while a person's leave is extended by statute. That will put the onus on the Government to make variation and removal decisions simultaneously in order to gain the benefits of that provision. Appellants will be able to contest a decision to curtail or to refuse to vary leave at the same time as they can contest a decision to remove them from the UK. That right of appeal can be exercised while in the UK and the appellant will continue to enjoy leave, on the same terms as before, during the appeal process. For example, a student will be able to continue studying throughout his appeal proceedings. Again, the position is the same under existing legislation.
	We have also introduced a new order-making power, which will potentially place a limit on the power to certify asylum and human rights claims as clearly unfounded. The intention is that that will allow the Secretary of State to designate certain categories of applicants as being beyond the scope of the section 94 certification powers in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That will enable us to ensure that where people have been granted leave on a particular basis, they will always be entitled to an in-country right of appeal.
	Those changes fit into the wider strategy of implementing an end-to-end migration process. That will incorporate other elements of the five-year strategy, such as the introduction of e-borders, which will help us to know when people fail to comply with the terms of their leave. Specific concerns were expressed, however, about clauses 1, 3 and 11, and the interplay between them, in terms of those variations, which I think we have rectified through the amendments.

John Bercow: The Minister referred to the assumption of a new order-making power and to a category of persons to whom it would apply. For the elucidation of those of us who did not serve on the Standing Committee and who have not been privy all along to the details of the Government's thinking, can he say exactly who will be in that category and therefore to whom the new order-making power will apply?

Tony McNulty: That is an entirely fair point. We do not intend to use that power with any repetition or regularity, but at one end of the process it will include children, and in other cases it will include those who, through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission or other processes, have been earmarked as necessarily being excluded. It is notI am grateful that this did not characterise our deliberations too mucha universal power that affects everyone but is used in limited circumstances. In many other debates on the subject, the House has taken a universalistic approach to measures that were intended to deal with very limited circumstances. That certainly applies in this instance.
	I said in Committee that when we were in a position to elaborate before embarking on the process of making the order, if it proved possible to consult and give the House further details of the nature and shape of the order before it was put to the House I would do so, in keeping with the approach that I had tried to adopt in Committee.

Philip Hollobone: By how much will the appeal process be shortened if the Government amendments are passed?

Tony McNulty: The main purpose is to establish a one-stop appeal process and for all matters to be considered on that one-stop basis. At worst, there are currently any number of lengthy delays leading up to an appeal on variation of leave, and further delay after the appeal has been resolved and as a prelude to an appeal on removal. By definition, the amendments must truncate the appeal process while, crucially, maintaining all the human-rights considerations such as fair play and natural justice that should prevail during it.
	The strict answer to the hon. Gentleman's question really depends on his definition of how long the combined process lasts now, and on how we can reduce it to one stop. However, there is a backstop to all the options in the shape of natural justice and all the other elements of given rights, and a full deliberation on all aspects of an individual's case at the one-stop appeal.
	I have not counted them, but there is a range of amendments which, although consequential, are consequential to substantive amendments that go to the heart of many of the genuine anxieties expressed by Members of both Houses about a crucial matter, which some Members may wish to follow up. I refer to the interplay between clauses 1, 3 and 11, and the way in which they relate to all aspects of appeals on variation of leave. We think that the Bill is now in much better shape

Neil Gerrard: rose

Peter Bone: rose

Tony McNulty: I shall return to the stereo in a moment. First, if I may, I shall finish my sentence.
	We think that the Bill is now in much better shape because of the scrutiny here, in Committee and in the other place, and that the House can feel more than satisfied that the current proposals are appropriate.

Neil Gerrard: May I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)? I believe that it related to Lords amendment No. 10, which deals with the order-making power in regard to certification. If I understand the amendment correctly, it provides for the Government to introduce orders under the power to protect people from certification. I trust that that would apply to a number of groups, as well as unaccompanied children. The amendment seems to imply that certification will, or may, happen unless an order is introduced.

Tony McNulty: In relation specifically to the amendment, my hon. Friend is right. In the wider context of certification, the provision goes beyond that. When we discussed the issue in Committee, my hon.Friend expressed particular concerns about unaccompanied children. I said then, and repeated a moment ago, that when we knew the final shape and direction of not just the order but the substance, I would be more than happy to present it to the House before the order-making process went ahead in the normal fashion.

Peter Bone: As the Minister knows, I write to him frequently because of the immigration issues that arise in my surgery. Three or four will probably arise this week. Although it is claimed that the process will be completed within 13 weeks, it is generally more like 13 months, which causes a great deal of anxiety. I hope that the amendments will improve the position.

Tony McNulty: I cannot claim that the amendments will deal with the much-vexed issue of the 13-week clause in letters, but I take the hon. Gentleman's wider point about the immigration and nationality directoraterather like other Government bodiessaying what it means and meaning what it says. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have engaged in extensive meetings, six or seven of them, with a range of Members. Some, but not all, have focused on new Members. I had a meeting only the other dayhappily, I did not spend too much time at itwith the Liberal Democrats. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) has received this information yet, but I have said that if a meeting with new Conservative Members proves necessary, I shall be more than happy to arrange it. However, I hope, and am assured, that the stock of It will take only 13 weeks letters is diminishing as we speak.
	I want the IND to be very clear about relisted time limits, however embarrassing that may be. I envy the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) if he receives only three or four letters a week; my office, in a London constituency, receives about that number in an hour, and far more cases arise in my surgery. We should bear it in mind that the people involved are often in the most vulnerable circumstances. To them, 13 weeks means 13 weeks, and after 13 weeks, to the day, they are on the telephone to Members of Parliament and others wanting something to be done. The time limits should reflect reality. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the position is improving, but scope remains for things always to get better, as someone said.

John Bercow: As the Minister will know, the demography of my constituency is such that I do not receive a large number of such cases, but those that I do receive are of great importance to the people who come to me, and of great importance to me.
	May I ask the Minister two things about the order-making power? First, it is not clear to meI am not suspicious, but I want to knowwhether it is subject to the negative procedure of the House, as I suspect, or to its affirmative counterpart. Secondly, may we have sight of further details of the power before the legislation is given Royal Assent?

Tony McNulty: In answer to the second question, I can saywithout tempting presumption in relation to this House or the other placethat I hope for a rather swift Royal Assent. I therefore cannot promise sight of those details between now and Royal Assent, assuming that matters proceed as I expectalthough they may not, of course. I repeat, however, that I will ensure that the House has sight of the details before the order is laid, so that Members know what is coming rather than seeing it for the first time on the Order Paper. Although I am loth to encourage the hon. Gentleman, because I concentrated on his second question the first now completely escapes me. If he will repeat it, I will respond to it.

John Bercow: Negative versus affirmative.

Tony McNulty: I shall need to check. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked us to adopt the affirmative procedure in regard to a range of order-making powers, and in the main we have done that. I hope that I shall receive some sort of inspiration and will be able to let the hon. Gentleman know the answer to his question, but as these are serious matters I have tried more often than not to ensure a positive rather than a negative. Having said that, I must say that in this case it is a negative. However, we shall deal later with other cases that are overwhelmingly positive because we have followed the deliberations of the DPRRC, wherein lies the source of many of the other amendments.
	With those caveats, and with the assurance that I shall ensure that the order is available before it is tabled and we engage in the rather limited negative process, I commend the amendments. I think that they put the relationship between clauses 1, 3 and 11 into far better shape, and for that I thank this House and the Standing Committee.

Damian Green: I am sure that the whole House was delighted to see the Minister rise to move this group of amendments, given his slightly strange failure to reach the starting gate a couple of weeks ago, when we were meant to be discussing them. I am also very conscious that some in this Chamber, including him, have been toiling for months in the vineyard that is this Bill. I have been added to the toilers at the back-end of the eleventh hour of our proceedings; indeed, I feel like a substitute sent on in injury time, trying to find the pace of the game.
	As the Minister said, essentially this group of amendments deals with the vexed subject of appeals, which has been debated passionately throughout the various proceedings in both Houses. I welcome his agreement that they are a tribute to the debates in another place. I pay specific tribute to Baroness Ashton, who has shown that she is a Minister capable of listening and of engaging in constructive debate with Opposition parties. That welcome ministerial attribute is not always a universal one; however, it is a universal attribute of the better Ministers.
	There are a number of important issues to discuss when we come to the other groups of amendments, so I shall be brief, particularly given that, in essence, we support the changes that their Lordships have made to this part of the Bill. We share the aim of a shorter appeal process. Over-long legal proceedings bedevil the whole immigration process and, as has already been demonstrated in interventions, they are one reason why so many of those involved in the immigration process regard it as a failing policy area.
	We have just discussed the standard 13-week letter that all of us have received from the immigration and nationality directorate. The Minister says that he still has a stock of them that he needs to get through. To be candid, for many of us, the easiest way to get through them would be simply to cross out week and insert month, because these days, 13 months is much more likely to be the time within which people expect to get a response. The Minister probably knows better than anyone that that is simply unacceptable. It is a symbol of the delays that have occurred throughout the process, so we welcome the attempt, through these amendments, to balance the desire to shorten the appeal process with the essential safeguarding of the legal right of those going through the process to feel that they are not being put at a particular and important disadvantage by the Government's proposed changes, which do, of course, in some ways reduce the right of appeal.
	The key point is that these amendments meet the concernexpressed by Members of all partiesthat an appeal against refusal to vary leave should be in-country, and that people's leave should be preserved on the same terms and conditions until that appeal is finally determined. We therefore welcome them, and we also welcome the fact that appellants with humanitarian protection and unaccompanied minorsa key and sensitive area that, to judge by other groups of amendments, we will consider again laterwill benefit from the changes. We welcome the fact that if an asylum appeal is certified as being clearly unfounded, it can still be heard out of country; however, the possibility remains of challenging the certificate by judicial review. That is a sensible step.
	Finally, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association seeks two valid assurances. First, can the Minister offer an assurance that the amendments do not create any new powers to subject people to restrictions, over and above the powers that already exist in respect of those with an in-country appeal against a decision to refuse to vary leave? Secondly, can he assure us that the Government are considering using their new powers to protect certain groups from certification of their asylum claims as clearly unfounded? I believe that the answer to both questions is yes, but it would be helpful all round if the Minister could say so formally here today.

Neil Gerrard: I will be brief. The amendments go a long way towards answering many of the concerns that were raised in Committee about the changes to appeal rights. Indeed, I welcome many of the changes that have been made.
	I have referred already to Lords amendment No. 10, but No. 8 is also important as it deals with a matter that I discussed at some length with the Minister in Committee. It clarifies the position of people whose application for variation of leave is refused and who are waiting for their appeal to be heard, by providing that the terms and conditions of leave will be preserved until that appeal is determined. I hope that I am right in believing that that provision reads over to the clauses dealing with employment, so that people with leave to be here and permission to work would retain that permission until their appeal had been heard.
	In Committee, I said that many hon. Members would be familiar with the problem that people given exceptional leave to remain for a number of years might apply for indefinite leave, but that consideration of the application can take so long that their exceptional leave expires. The amendments provide that the terms and conditions of that exceptional leave will still apply, so that people will retain their permission to work. Unfortunately, the problem is that, because such people will be able to show on paper only that their exceptional leave to remain has expired, potential employers do not believe that they retain their permission to work. Similar problems arise with the Benefits Agencybecause people's exceptional leave to remain has expired and their valid application for indefinite leave has still to be determined, the agency asks for proof that they are entitled to benefits.
	I hope that the Minister will confirm that when the new systems are introduced, people who are notified that their application for variation of leave has been refused and that they have a right of appeal are also told that their existing permission to remain is valid until the appeal is determined. That would help everyone. The people involved would be able to convince employers or the Benefits Agency, if necessary, that their previous entitlements still applied.

Peter Bone: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that confusion about the matter is a big problem? People bring various bits of paper to advice surgeries, but are not sure what they can and cannot do, so what he suggests would be most helpful.

Neil Gerrard: It is very common to see people who are not clear about such matters, but most of the people whom I see believe that they should remain entitled to work or to claim benefit. Their problem is that potential employers do not accept that, as it is not possible to produce a piece of paper that says so. All they have is a piece of paper showing that their exceptional leave to remain has expired.
	It would help everyonethe individuals concerned, employers, the Benefits Agency and MPs who hold advice surgeriesif the Home Office were to make it clear, when issuing notices of revocation, that people have a right to appeal and that existing permissions continue until that appeal is heard.
	Having said that, I welcome the changes that have been made. They pick up many of the points made in Committee, and the structure of the relevant clauses is much better and more acceptable as a result.

David Heath: With the use of several metaphors, the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) told us how late he had come to the Bill. I come to it even later, but I make no excuses for that because every year there is an immigration and asylum Bill to catch. I have worked on many of them in previous years.
	I do not want to extend the debate on this group of amendments, which I welcome. I acknowledge the Minister's comments about the care that has been taken on both sidesin Committee and on Report in this and another placeto make the measure a workable piece of legislation. I endorse what the hon. Member for Ashford said about Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who is an outstanding Minister. She is characterised by her preparedness always to listen to what is said and to react politely and transparently. She is an object lesson to all Ministers in either House[Interruption.] Of course, that applies to all Home Office Ministers.
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) probably knows more about immigration and asylum than any other Member. He made some apposite comments about documentation, which I support.
	The amendments make it clear that there will be in-country appeal and that leave will be preserved according to the same terms and conditions until the appeal is determined. I hope that that will be welcomed on both sides of the House, so that we can move on to groups that contain slightly more contentious issues, which will need longer debate.

Tony McNulty: I was asked to respond to a couple of points. I shall happily take back to Baroness Ashton people's kind words, which I heartily endorse all round. Once or twice, she invoked me as her Big Brother, nastier version in the Commons, but it got the job done, which is what matters.
	The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) made a fair point when he asked for an assurance that the new powers would not subject people to restrictions over and above existing powers that apply to a person with an in-country appeal against a decision to refuse, vary or curtail leave. I happily give that commitment. The amendments create a new power to make a removal decision while a person has continuing leave, but they do not create new powers to restrict a person's activities, so because people will have continuing leave during an appeal they cannot be detained, or required to report, during the currency of their appeal.
	I concur with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) knows far more than anybody else about these matters. Happily for me, this is my first immigration Bill; my hon. Friend has worked on all of them since 1997. We do not always agree about them, but I certainly agree about his integrity and the informed manner with which he puts his case.
	My hon. Friend made two points. One was about practicality and goes beyond the Bill. The second was specific to the Bill and I can tell him that, yes, people will have continuing leave on the same terms; for example, if they were able to work before the original decision, they can continue to do so before the appeal. We discussed that at length in Committee.
	My hon. Friend's second point, which related more to the practicalities, was how we could reach clarity about a person's continuing status during the appeal. We need to consider that in some detail, but I hope that he agrees that it is a question of practicalitieshow we get the message across and raise awarenessrather than substantial to the amendments. We accept the amendment and I commend it to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 4
	  
	Entry Clearance

Lords amendment: No. 6.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	If the interplay between clauses 1, 3 and 11 dealt with in-country appeals, clause 4 is just about entry clearance officer appeals. I say that because there was some confusion about whether all those matters came broadly under one heading. The other complication is that clause 4 relates not only to much of what is in the five-year strategy, but equally to what is in the points-based system document that was launched just the other week. Again, I can say, at my emollient bestwe all have the training; some of us retain it better than others, and I am clearly not one of themthat I am happy to accept the Lords amendment because there were concerns about how things would operate once appeal rights were removed.
	As I have said before, as and when we introduce various parts of the points-based system, only then will the appeal rights fall away. So there is not a big bang approach or a notion that, pending Royal Assent and subsequent commencement, appeals disappear, creating a gap before the points-based system and the new arrangements are introduced. We have made it clear that we will take away the appeal rights, as afforded by clause 4, only as and when the equivalent element of the points-based system is in place.
	Clause 4 will remove appeal rights simultaneously with the introduction of the tiers of the new system. We need not dwell on the new system, but I accept the concerns expressed in the Lords amendment: if we are making such a move, which is radical in introducing the points-based system and perhaps in removing the appeal process, it is incumbent on us to make substantive reports to the House about the efficacy or otherwise of the system once the appeal process has been removed. That is essentially what the Lords amendment is about, and we are happy to accept it.
	The report will include an assessment of the effect of removing appeals and look at the administrative review process that we will create and other aspects, includingthis may be some of concern to hon. Members, but it is not meant to bethe notion that opinions may be recorded, under subsection (3)(g). We want the report to be as full as possible. We want it to include concerns and opinions about how effective or otherwise the system has been from what we are now toldin the training school for Ministersto call stakeholders. The various groups that have some interest in the efficacy of the points-based system and the removal of appeals should be included in a report presented to the House.
	In conclusion, the Lords amendment meets some of those concerns, including the broad concern that British public policy is terribly good at making legislation but not terribly good at taking account of, evaluating and feeding back the success or otherwise of that legislation. That is what the report seeks to address, so we are happy to accept the Lords amendment in the spirit in which it was intended.

Damian Green: This will be the apogee of cross-party agreement on the Bill in some ways, since I am inevitably happy to support the Lords amendment, which was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay. Once the Government had rejected the arguments of a wide coalition, including the CBI and Universities UK, that their original ideas about the implementation of clause 4 would be disastrous, my noble Friends in another place had to find the best available option, given the pressures of the Salisbury convention, which they always observe, and Lords amendment No. 6 is precisely the best available option.
	The Minister should be aware, however, that in supporting the Lords amendment we do not resile from the deep sense of unease that caused us to vote against the underlying clause, clause 4, in Committee. There are a number of reasons why the reporting back procedure that the Lords amendment proposes is the bare minimum necessary to allow Parliament to take a proper considered view of the Government's very radical reductions in the rights of those who apply for entry into this country.
	The key to whether the new system will work is the quality of initial decision making. At the moment, almost no one has much confidence that that is up to the task. I dare say that even the Minister, in his more honest private moments, wonders whether it is.
	The assurance given by the Government throughout the debates, and again this afternoon, has been that the new points-based system, which they have now published, makes everything so transparent and easy for applicants and their sponsors that the world will change and difficulties will melt away. Again, privately, in his honest moments, the Minister will understand why those who have regular contact with the immigration system in this country will be profoundly sceptical about the optimism shown by the Government on that issue.
	In this debate we will wish to confine ourselves to the issues that make reporting back vital. The Minister will be aware that many people still find huge flaws in the operation of the system. As I said, the quality of decisions is the key to this matter. Last year, 53 per cent. of appeals against refusals of entry clearance were allowed. It is worth dwelling on that figure. It is more likely than not that if someone appeals against a refusal, they will be successful. The initial decisions are slightly more likely to be wrong than right. I cannot imagine many areas of public policy where we would regard that as an acceptable initial performance[Interruption.] As ever, the Minister has gone back into chuntering mode. If he wishes to challenge the figures, I am sure that he can do so.
	Throughout the debates in both Houses, it has been clear that there is profound dissatisfaction with the entry clearance system. The Minister is trying to assure us that the new points-based system will resolve all that. At best, the verdict will have to be not proven, because he has not got the new system in place yet. The degree of scepticism shown by everyone involved in the process is entirely right.

Peter Bone: Sitting in my surgery and listening to the people who come in and say that their applications have   been refused, I wonder about the standard of consistency between decisions. I hope that this system will make things slightly better.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes one of the many good points that are made by those who suffer under the current system: the quality of decision making seems to be hugely variable, depending on from which entry post the applications are originally made. That is shown in the statistics as well. Some of them have much higher rates of successful appeals than others. One can only assume that that reflects a variable quality of initial decision making. It is impossible to imagine that it reflects anything else.
	The Government's point is that the new system is better because it will be much more objective and transparent. Goodlet us hope that that happens. However, as the Minister himself said in Committee:
	100 per cent. objectivity is a fool's errand . . . It is not about simply ticking boxes and adding points up, although that is a large part of the measure.[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20 October 2005; c. 116.]
	He is absolutely right about that. The system will not be 100 per cent. objective. Subjectivity will still come in, so if the new system is to inspire more confidence and perform better than the existing system, it is essential that everyone can be confident that the people making the decisions, which will still be subjective in part, are up to the job. That is one of the key reasons why it is vital that we review the system after a few years.
	The other key point was made at length by the outgoing independent monitor, Fiona Lindsley, who has been extensively quoted in the debates on the issue. Talking about the system and referring to the fact that 37 per cent. of appellants were successful in paper-based appeals, she said, That is pretty damning. The Minister is famously contemptuous of everyone who disagrees with him, but I hope that he will take an independent monitor seriously, especially as she pointed out that the National Audit Office broadly agreed with her assessment of the system. If she thinks that the system is inadequate and the National Audit Office thinks that it is inadequate, it is not unreasonable for other people to think the same.
	One could have many serious reservations about what the Government are doing, and I congratulate their lordships on producing a way in which the House, the other placeand, indeed, anyone involved in the systemcan come back in a few years to find out whether the Minister's optimism was justified. I hope that it will be justified, but I fear that it will not.

David Heath: Again, I do not need to take long. I entirely welcome the fact that the amendment was moved and accepted in the other place and that the Minister is accepting it today. The amendment represents a small move towards effective post-legislative scrutiny. It is hardly a revolutionary step in that direction, but at least it gives us a yardstick by which we can measure the performance of the system in future years. I do not think that that measure will be enough to let us make a proper assessment, so I hope that the relevant Select Committees will examine the performance of the system carefully, using the report as their basis. I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) that the success rate of appeals is a crude indicator, but it certainly suggests that there is a limit to the accuracy of the present assessment procedures. That, at the very least, gives us an indicator of where we should be looking.
	Proposed new subsection (3)(g), in Lords amendment No. 6, which reads may record opinions, is especially valid because it will allow not just the accumulation of numerical data, but impressions to be sought and given about the way in which the system is working. When the Minister talks about stakeholdersmany of us have difficulties with that term as a conceptI hope that he is not referring simply to the usual suspects and the obvious organisations that might have a prepared opinion, whether that is on immigration, legal matters or business. I hope that the group will also include those who are directly affected, either as users, or perhaps as individuals in the small business sector. The Minister will know that there are specific concerns about the recruitment of staff in ethnic restaurants.

Keith Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman has covered the point, I do not need to go on about all the ethnic restaurants in the United Kingdom. However, I put it to him that when we examine the overall spread of immigration decisions, it is important that we consider the robustness and effectiveness of entry clearance decisions. It is not just a question of the Home Office getting things right. If the review process shows that changes have to be made regarding decisions on posts abroad, they should be implemented.

David Heath: I could not agree more. When I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we examined closely consular activities and procedures in the sub-continent of India and Pakistan. I hope that we made constructive comments about the arrangements that were in place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, welcome the amendment and hope that we will examine carefully how the system works in the future.

Tony McNulty: There is little to come back on. I thank hon. Members for their comments. The Bill will be improved by the amendment, which we are happy to accept. I shall not dwell on the undue provocation of casual empiricism at length from the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I forgive him that, given that he is new in his post, but much of what he said was complete nonsense and factually inaccurate, and it would not stand up in the gentlest of winds. However, in the spirit of emollition and scrutiny

Damian Green: Be specific.

Tony McNulty: I will be specific at length afterwards, but I do not want to waste people's time now, as the hon. Gentleman did. In the broader spirit, rather than in my normal spirit, I commend the amendment to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 15
	  
	Penalty

Lords amendment: No. 11.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16.

Tony McNulty: These amendments are all, in the main, fairly minor and technical. Some go to points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; here, rather than elsewhere, we move from negative to affirmative procedure with some of the order-making powers, especially in amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Some dwell onlegalistic purists might demur at thisthe issue of effluxion of time, which might be better put into English in the Bill, so it duly is, in amendment No. 15. Many of the other provisions simply repeat these technicalities or go to some of the consequences that should be reflected from the Equality Bill. I know that people always bristle and become deeply suspicious when a Minister contends that a series of amendments is minor and technical. They scurry off and read them in great detail, because they having the feeling that the Minister is trying to hide something. I can assure the House that in this instance all the amendments before us, which were agreed to by the other place, are entirely acceptable to the Government. In that spirit, I ask the House to accept the amendments.

Damian Green: I will not bombard the Minister with any more facts, because I know that under the bluster he is a sensitive flower who dislikes facts that he finds uncomfortable being put forward. However, I shall ask him a question. Unusually, I am happy to accept his assurance that the amendments before us are largely technical. Despite all the evidence, I wish to believe him on this matter.
	The amendments are clearly designed to remove some of the ambiguities in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could comment on whether he thinks that the amendments are sufficient to cope with public sector employers who fall foul of the Bill. For example, what penalty would fall on an NHS hospital trust that employed a chef who did not have leave to remain? Clearly that will be one of the practical effects of the legislation. We know that the NHSit is probably the best exampleis the biggest employer of immigrant labour in this country. The amendments seem to be designed, and rightly so, to catch private sector employers who are breaking the law. However, there is ambiguity about how the provisions affect the public sector, particularly that part of it which is undifferentiated. Will this be at trust level or at general NHS level? [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for his desire to intervene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister intervenes, I must say that none of the amendments relates to the public sector.

Tony McNulty: I am not sure whether to continue with my intervention or to begin it again.
	The law in this instance, in this set of amendments and in this area generally relates to employers, period. There is no differentiation or distinction under the law.

Damian Green: I believe that to be the case. I apologise if I was misinterpreting the amendments. My understanding was the same as the Minister's, which is that they apply to employers whether in the public or the private sector. I assume that the Minister is saying that the effect on private and public sector employers will be the same.
	I shall ask the Minister a specific question about the NHS. It seems that people can be employees of a hospital trust or of a primary care trust, but within that there is some genuine ambiguity about what will be the relevant authority.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the number of changes to immigration law that have affected employers over the past few years. Does he agree that it is incumbent upon the Government to make employers aware of these changes? I know that the Minister has talked about the various seminars that he has attended on the changes being proposed to managed migration. It is important that employers, particularly small businesses, are made aware of what is happening. The penalties are extremely severe.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is right. Like him, I have had meetings with trade groups, particularly from the restaurant trade, who make the point that many of their members feel remote from legislation and find it difficult to access information. They are therefore vulnerable when legislation is changed and the changes have a serious effect on their business. If the Minister is saying that there is no possible ambiguity I welcome his reassurance. However, perhaps we should deal with the matter privately in correspondence, as I believe that ambiguities remain in the Lords amendments.

John Bercow: The fact that the Lords amendments are silent about sectors does not in itself make them unclear or unintelligible, but does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made a good point about the need to provide clarity for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises? The onus is on Ministers, not to ask companies to come to a seminarfrankly a small business does not have the time to attend seminarsbut to ensure that a pithy and distilled summary is sent at Government expense to employers who want to comply but may not know how to.

Damian Green: That is right. Clearly, there are problems that affect small businesses in the private sector, especially those run by members of ethnic minority populations, so the Government have a significant duty to act. I am concerned that there is a dichotomy between the way in which the private and public sectors are affected by the Lords amendments. I hope that the Minister will try to reassure me that there is absolutely no difference and that there is no ambiguity in the Bill's provision as they affect parts of the public sector.

Keith Vaz: Briefly, may I reinforce the point made by the hon. Members for Buckingham (John Bercow) and for Ashford (Damian Green)? I appreciate the enormous amount of time and effort that the Minister devotes to these matters. He works assiduously on behalf of his constituency, and he is known throughout the wider Asian community as a champion of the ethnic minorities community, so that record makes it easier for him to introduce tough legislation on immigration.
	I urge the Government, however, to take enormous care with the Bill's provisions, as there have been huge changes in immigration law in the nine years in which they have been in office. The House understands why they have decided to introduce those changes. The problem is partly inherited, but it is also caused by the huge number of people who have come to the country in the past 10 years or so seeking asylum, and by the large number of cases that have been turned down.
	Enforcement is an issue, too. I have many ethnic minority businesses in my constituency, as do the Minister and other hon. Members, and genuine employers are under enormous pressure. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, although we welcome the seminars and discussions offered by the Minister, employers find it difficult to find the time to attend those meetings. I fully support the proposal to issue a clear document to those businesses precisely to explain the changes in the law, so that there is no concern on their part that they may be acting unlawfully. They do not have time to attend seminars, or the resources to employ solicitors. I declare an interest, because my wife is an immigration solicitoralthough I am not touting for business on her behalf. It is an expensive business, and it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the information is provided to such employers. I hope very much that that can be done.
	I remember that when he was Minister for Europe, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he could reduce the whole of the European constitution to, I think, 50 words. I do not know how, but if he could do that with the European constitution, the Government could make a real effort so that employers understand the enormous changes that will occur as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was anxious not to cut off the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) in mid-speech, but this is not intended to be a general debate on clauses 15 to 26. It is about six specific Lords amendments. Also, when we have a timed motion before us, as we have now, there is a temptation and a tendency to stroll through the early amendments, and then we find the House galloping frantically towards the end. I hope that that will not happen to us today.

David Heath: I particularly welcome your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as there is a risk of our not reaching some important business. We had a useful diversion into the dissemination of information to businesses, which is extremely important but is not the matter before us. If businesses are not sure of the law, that will act as a deterrent to the employment of people whose immigration status is unclear in the mind of an employer.
	The Minister invited us to accept his assurance that the amendments were technical. I have not the slightest intention of accepting an assurance from the Minister that amendments are ever technical. What I am prepared to do is look at the amendments and take a view. My view is that the amendments are technical, and welcome.

Tony McNulty: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been calling the Minister routinely, but as we are dealing with Lords amendments, he will need the leave of the House if he wishes to respond. There is no automatic need for him to respond.

Tony McNulty: With the leave of the House, and at the risk of challenging the Deputy Speaker's exhortation, I shall respond to a couple of points. First, there is no ambiguity. I want to make that clear. The provision is about the legal contract between employer and employee. There is no distinction between public and private employers. Secondly, I take the points that hon. Members have made and plans will be put in place. When changing the law, it is incumbent on Government to make sure that information is disseminated throughout the sectors affected, even those that are hard to get at, such as small businesses generally and those in the ethnic community specifically.
	I am firmly convinced that at some stage in the very near future, there will be time for a consolidated asylum and immigration miscellaneous provisions Bill, but now is not the time. I commend the Lords amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 34
	  
	Offence

Lords amendment: No. 17.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The House will be happy to know that again, the Government accept the Lords amendment. Againalthough I advise Members to check for themselvesit is a minor and technical amendment, which clarifies the nature of an offence when a person in Scotland refuses to comply with English or Welsh police information requested under e-borders. That is entirely routine and simply tidies up the provisions and takes account of the Scottish dimension. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that was a stroll.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 43
	  
	Accommodation

Lords amendment: No. 18.

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (b) to the Lords amendment.

Neil Gerrard: There has been a misunderstanding about Lords amendment No. 18 and section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. To make it clear what we are talking about, I remind hon. Members that section 4 of the 1999 Act applies to people who have had their asylum claims refused, who have lost their appeals, who have reached the end of the process and who have agreed that they will leave the UK when it is possible for them to do so, which is a condition of receiving support under section 4. In some cases, people have signed up to say that they will leave the UK when it is possible for them to do so, not because they really want to leave, but because that is the only way in which they can get any support. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people covered by section 4 are receiving support because the Home Office accepts that it is not possible to return them to their countries of origin at this time.
	Last year, the number of people covered by section 4 rose to 7,000. Many of them were failed asylum seekers from northern Iraq, but there were also significant numbers of people who were originally from Zimbabwe and whom it was impossible to remove for obvious reasonsother countries that were heavily represented include Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia. Although the Home Office would say that people covered by section 4 are about to leave the United Kingdom, the reality is that people are and will be on section 4 for significant periods of time, so the provision is not necessarily just for a week or two.
	The Lords amendment and my amendment to it address the issue of vouchers. Some of the discussion has not been clear, and some people outside this House have not realised that people who are covered by section 4 now are getting support in vouchers. Section 4 allows for accommodation and food, and if people are getting food that is not provided in their living accommodation, then they are getting it through vouchers. The Home Office accepts that that system has not been working satisfactorilywe debated that point in Committeebecause it does not cover people's other essential needs.
	I have seen people who were on section 4 and who could not get on the bus to see their solicitor, because they did not have any money or a voucher to allow them to travel on the bus. Other people have been issued with vouchers that can be used only at a particular supermarket that is two or three miles away from where they live, and they have no way to get there other than walking. The Lords amendment seeks to address some of those points, and there is no doubt that it would improve the current situation, because it provides vouchers that can be exchanged for goods and services as well as for accommodation and food. Will the Minister clarify whether, for example, bus passes will be included among those goods and services to allow people to travel?
	We know that there are fundamental problems with voucher systems from our experience when all asylum seekers were expected to use vouchers. Expense is one such issue, because it is more expensive to distribute vouchers than money. Furthermore, vouchers ended up being sold for cash under the old system, and they often cannot be used in the most convenient places and cannot necessarily be used in the cheapest places. If I were looking to buy cheap food in the area of London that I represent, I would not go to the supermarket. I would go to Walthamstow market, especially towards the end of the day when the traders are trying to get rid of stuff cheap before the market closes. That would be much cheaper than going to the supermarket, but people who live on vouchers do not have that option.
	The fundamental objection to vouchers is simple. The people involved may be failed asylum seekers, who are being supported until such time as they are expected to leave the country, but they are still human beings. We should therefore think about the simple issue of human dignity. Having to survive on vouchers is stigmatising and humiliating. I suppose that none of us has ever had that experience, but we should try to imagine what it would be like to try to exist for even a day or two without any cashwithout a penny to buy a drink or newspaper. It must be humiliating to live like that for weeks and months on end.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have responded positively to some of the problems that were identified in section 4 when it meant that people could get only accommodation and food. Amendment No. 18 includes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow vouchers to be exchanged for goods and services, and I hope that that will include travel. The amendment specifically forbids a regulation to be made that allows people to be supplied with money. The effect of amendment (a) would be to remove the word not in that provision. It is a modest amendment. I would prefer it if vouchers were removed entirely, but my amendment would not force the Government to give out cash, but allow them the option to do so.
	I do not understand why the Government will resist my amendment. What will happen if amendment No. 18 is not amended and it then turns out that it is not possible to meet all people's needs through vouchers? The National Asylum Support Service saysas it did about section 4that it will not work. If the Government wished to make a change to the system because it was not working, they would need more primary legislation. However, if the Government accept amendment (a) they would have the option. It would provide the flexibility to make changes through secondary legislation without having to resort to more primary legislation. The amendment would not do away with vouchers or force the Government to give out cash.
	In a later amendment, the Government have accepted a similar argument in relation to section 9 of the 2004 Act. That amendment will give the power to introduce secondary legislation to repeal section 9. That is obviously intended to be used if it becomes apparent that section 9 is not working. I would therefore argue that my amendment's impact on section 4 would be exactly the same.
	When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister said:
	I do not know if we can address the matter in the Bill, as it is more about practicalities than any point of statutory substance or import, but I am happy to consider it further.[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 October 2005; c. 234.]
	I would suggest that my amendment is very practical and straightforward, and I do not understand why it should be resisted. It would not remove from the Government the option of doing what they intend, but would make it possible to move away from vouchers, which is what some of us would ideally like.
	An early-day motion on this issue has been signed by 55 hon. Members, including 27 Labour Members. I suspect that there is no chance of the parliamentary arithmetic being with us on this amendment. However, I hope that the Government will give my proposal serious consideration, because it offers a way of dealing with some of the criticisms of section 4 and of the Lords amendment, but leaves them with the flexibility to change in future if necessary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. David Heath.

David Heath: Do you mean me, Sir?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You are Mr. David Heath?

David Heath: I am sorry, but I did not hear whether you said my name or Mr. Green's.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a bit difficult for the Chair to decide who to call if everybody who wants to address the House does not stand quickly. I call Mr. Damian Green.

Damian Green: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak principally to amendment (b), which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), but I also wish to comment on the arguments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
	As our amendment is carefully modelled on amendment No. 6, which has been agreed between the two Front Benches in another place, I have high hopes that the Minister will accept it. He will agree that the argument over vouchers is a delicate one. I have been following his correspondence in various newspapers with those who are flatly against his scheme and his argument that it will not make much difference and will not be a voucher scheme. He has clearly failed to convince the hon. Member for Walthamstow, among others. I am sure that the House will be waiting to hear how he deals with that issue.
	Although I do not agree with all the arguments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, he raises valid points, particularly as regards people from Zimbabwe, who are in a very difficult situation. The Government, rightly, do not wish to return them to Zimbabwe even if they have failed in their application for asylum. That gives rise to practical problems as to how they are to continue living in a decent and civilised way in this country.
	One of the questions that the Government have not answered adequately concerns the cost of such a voucher scheme. They have tried voucher schemes before and scrapped them before. A previous Home Secretary conceded that the voucher scheme that operated previously was unworkable and unfair. Having come to that conclusion once, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why the current scheme is going to be workable and fair and, while he does so, what, in broad terms, he thinks that the costs will be.
	That question may be impossible to answer because the Government have no idea of how long many people will be forced to wait until they can be returned to their own country. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out, the phrase, about to leave, is a term of art that appears to cover not just days or weeks but in some cases months and years. Clearly, a system designed to cope with the needs of those who may be here for a few weeks will not serve those who might be here for years. The hon. Member for Walthamstow and the Refugee Council have made that point, which is central to the argument.
	Nevertheless, I should make it clear that Conservative Members have no objection in principle to vouchers, provided that the system is workable and fair. However, we recognise the possibility of inefficiency and waste, which may lead to hardship for some vulnerable people. We have tabled amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 18 in the hope that it gives the Government a decent escape route, not least from the criticism that the Minister is receiving from Labour Members. I am sure that he sincerely believes that the voucher system will not cause the unfairness and hardship that some Labour Members claim, so the Government should, at the very least, enable Parliament to receive a full report on its working in three years.
	If the Minister will listen, I am about to praise him. A few moments ago, he made a sensible comment about parliamentary scrutiny and using the Bill to enhance Parliament's ability to revisit legislation that it has passed. He was right to say that the lack of that ability is a common failing of our legislation. That is why amendment (b) tries to give hon. Members the opportunity to debate whether the new system causes genuine hardship and to have the Government justify their actions if they need justification. The terms of the amendment allow that to happen earlier if there is an immediate crisis or if the Government want a convenient vehicle to enable them to change the policy.
	Even if the scheme proves perfectly practical and the Government want to continue with it, the requirement to report back on its day-to-day workings will act as a spur to Ministers to check what is happening. The Minister knows that many bodies that object to that sort of scheme concentrate precisely on which shops can take the vouchers and the range of goods to which they apply. The nitty-gritty, day-to-day details will make the difference in some cases between fairness and unfairness and hardship and lack of hardship.
	I agree with the Minister that reporting back on the scheme is important. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the amendment in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. The long-term solution is not to have a system that keeps thousands of people in limbo for years. Since that happy prospect is many years away, I commend amendment (b) to the House, as a modest improvement to managing the current failing system, and I hope that it will satisfy hon. Members from all sides of the debate.

Keith Vaz: I commend the passionate and articulate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has spent many years considering the relevant issues. Few of us have as much experience as he. The way in which he presented the argument was correct.
	The amendment is about the practical implications of the scheme. I am against the voucher scheme and I commend the trade unions who fought so hard to get the Government to reverse their decision to reintroduce vouchers. We did not need to reintroduce them, but they are there. The Government will not be pilloried in the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday or The Sun if they give in on the point. That is sometimes a consideration for those in government, though happily not the Minister.
	Amendment (a) will cover the practical complaints that have been made to me in my surgery by many hundreds of people who provide anecdotal evidence of what they face when they use the vouchers. I have never been in a supermarket queue when someone has had to produce those vouchersindeed, I have never seen one. However, like other hon. Members, I hear every Friday about the practical difficulties that people face. Treating people as human beings, with dignity, is important, especially given the current climate.
	I appear on a website that states that I am a Member of Parliament who hardly ever rebels and that I am a serial loyalist. However, I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow if he presses amendment (a) to a Division and, if he does not, any party that wishes to do that. In all conscience, it is the right thing to do.

David Heath: I, too, welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), which he pitched exactly right. Lords amendment No. 18, which forms the basis for this group of amendments, is a welcome move. It extends the provision of support and, in normal circumstances, we would be hanging out the flags for that reason. Unfortunately, however, the provision is flawed by the decision to offer that support only through the voucher system. We know what vouchers do; we have gone through all that already.
	The Government have made it clear that the voucher system, when used for a large number of people, was ineffective and uneconomic and, more importantly, that it had a serious effect on the recipients in terms not only of the range of opportunities that it offered for buying goods and services but of the stigmatising effect that it had on the individuals presenting the vouchers in a local shop or business. That presents considerable dangers for community relations, because it clearly labels people

Tony McNulty: It exists now.

David Heath: Yes, and we are against it existing now, but it does. I have not said, as some have done, that this provision would be a reintroduction of the system. We know that it is not a reintroduction but an extension. However, we now have the opportunity to provide a better route for the growing number of people who are in this position. I accept the contention that they will be leaving the country after a short period, but the practical fact is that sometimes they do not. We have to accept that they are often stuck here for a considerable amount of time, for reasons beyond their or the Government's control.
	I am struck by the modesty of the proposal of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, to which my hon. Friends and I are happy to put our names. It would not require the Minister to move to a cash system; it would simply give him the opportunity to do so. The alternative amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) would provide some benefit in that it would allow the situation to be monitored and reported on, but it would not provide a vehicle for the Government to change their mind in the face of the evidence that had been collected. There would be no primary legislative ability in the Act to enable the provision of cash rather than vouchersindeed, that is specifically prohibited by the Bill. If the hon. Member for Ashford feels that his amendment is sensible, in that it gives the Government the ability to reflect on the performance of the scheme, he should logically also support amendment (a), which would give the Minister the capacity in primary legislation to correct any error in order to meet the requirements.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will press his amendment to a Division, because this is an important issue of principle on which the House should have a voice. If he does not wish to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I make it clear that we do? We shall object to any proposal to withdraw the amendment and we shall seek the opinion of the House on this matter, because it is a matter of principle. It relates to how we should deal effectively and humanely with people who are in our care in this country, and this is not an argument that we should run away from.

John Bercow: The speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) was inspired by compassion and delivered with eloquence. I do not want to embarrass him unduly, but this is one of those occasions on which people can come together, because we are agreed on the principle at stake. I, too, in common with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will press his amendment to a Division, and if he or others do, I am strongly minded to support it.
	Let us be clear. As the Minister who is engaged in thepublic debate well knows and has already acknowledged, vouchers are not new. They are not only not new in the sense that they have applied to a certain category, section 4 recipientsfailed asylum seekerssince April 2005they are not new in another sense, in that, as he will acknowledge, they have applied before. I believe and, in fairness, the Minister believesI raise these issues in a positive spiritthat the Government were right to remove vouchers across the piece in 2002. It is relevant to the public debate to recall what was said at that time, by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Announcing the intention to remove vouchers for asylum seekers more generally, he said that those vouchers were
	too slow, vulnerable to fraud, and felt to be unfair.[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 627.]
	He was right.
	Yes, the debate has moved on since then, and the Government have decided, for reasons that I think are scarcely intelligible let alone defensible, that voucher provisions should apply to a very limited category of personsthe section 4 cases, people whose applications for asylum have failed and who are destined eventually to go back to the countries from which they have come. They are not going back at this stage, because there is an impediment to them doing soit would not be safe for them to travel. That might be because the country to which they would have to return is unsafe and they would be at risk of imprisonment, torture, death or a grisly combination of all three, or it might be that they cannot travel for the more prosaic but equally important reason that they are unwell or, in the case of a woman, pregnant.
	In those circumstances, it is true that for virtually a year now those people have received voucher support to the tune of 35 a week. We all know the cases of people who have been affected. My anxiety about what the Government are doing is that it seems to me that Ministers are unnecessarily closing down the options. I am always ready to joust with the Minister of State, as he knows, and to listen to the points that he makes, but I have not yet heard a persuasive argument. I found the case made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the Refugee Council compelling.

Evan Harris: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's speech. He is becoming increasing liberal on these issues, which is good. May I urge him to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), because surely this is the sort of issue on which all the Opposition parties should be encouraging the Government to change their position if we are really to have a Conservative party that has changed and to put the maximum pressure on the Government?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is being unduly cheeky at this hour of the day. Rome was not built in a day. I yield to none in my admiration for the scale of the transformation of the Conservative and Unionist party that has already been brought about, in a very short time, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). If the hon. Gentleman seeks to egg me on, he must be mindful that he will be tempting me to stray from the disciplines of order. I would incur your wrath, or at any rate your furrowed brow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not minded to do so, even when tempted so sedulously by the hon. Gentleman.
	I have three simple concerns. First, to cut to the chase, the hon. Member for Walthamstow is right that the use of vouchers has a stigmatising effect. To try to decide whether we think that that argument is correct, let us for a moment imagine ourselves, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) did, in the position of someone using the voucher, standing in a queue in Tesco. If hon. Members ask me whether I have seen that myself in Tesco in Buckingham, I admit that I have not. I am conscious, however, that there will be right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House who have witnessed it.
	I do not want to be discourteous, but, with great respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood), it is a very serious point. For those people in those queues, experiencing stigmatisation, feeling embarrassed and anxious and finding themselves on the receiving end of hostility, it is not a laughing matter. They are waiting to pay for goods. Use of the voucher can lead to delay and, not surprisingly, that causes irritation among other people who are waiting. What could send a more obvious signal that someone is different than the fact that, unlike everyone else who is paying by cash or card, the failed asylum seeker is having to use a voucher?
	That is very unfortunate and undesirable. Whether it actually constitutes a breach of human rights is, I accept, arguable. What I would say to the Minister is that it is a very notable and unnecessary unkindness and it reflects a meanness of spirit that is unworthy of the Government. Although the Minister of State has long been determined to prove himself the Labour party's answer to my noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford, the truth is that on these issues he is a humanitarian. I do not want to embarrass himI know that he is always embarrassed when he is complimented by a Conservative Memberbut at heart he is a humanitarian on these issues. He has championed the cause of fairness in immigration and asylum policy over a long period. Although I think that there are serious weaknesses in aspects of government policy, he is not fundamentally a bad guy on these issues, and I ask him to think about those individuals in that queue.
	There is a related point affecting someone with a voucher in the queue. In the operation of the vouchers to date, there has been ambiguity over what the voucher can purchase. If the Minister can assure me that that will not be so in the future, I shall be delighted, but I shall want firm guarantees and explicit details. In many cases, in given stores it has fallen to the check-out assistant to judge whether the voucher can be used to purchase, for example, nappies. My viewand I hope that I command assent for this proposition in all parts of the Houseis that it is unfair on both the failed asylum seeker and the check-out assistant for that situation to arise.
	In so far as the Government have said that they want to introduce greater flexibility, recognise the need for additional support and can see that the operation of the system over the past 11 months has contained flaws, I welcome that, but I want to know what particular commitments they will make. It is wrong that someone using vouchers who is on section 4 support should have to make the invidious choice whether to use a voucher for travelif that opportunity will existor for purchasing food. We need to be sure that the vouchers will be sufficiently flexible and adequately generous to allow for all the necessities of life on which those people, no less than ourselves, depend.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman says that, if the vouchers are the only method of obtaining goods or services, they should be required to be sufficiently flexible. However, they cannot be sufficiently flexible to be used, for instance, in a coin-operated machine in a launderette. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), which simply allows cash to be given in certain circumstances, would deal with that purely practical problem.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was trying to be as fair to the Government as possible, but I agree with the purport of the amendment, as I said at the outset. Cash should be an option. As he will know and others can testify, a further weakness of the system is that it is not possibleconsistent with the principle of not allowing failed asylum seekers to have cashto obtain change for them. That means, to be blunt, that the failed asylum seeker, who is often poor to the point of destitution, is literally and calculatedly short-changed by the existing system. Moreover, although I am happy to champion the cause of legitimate capitalist enterprise, I see no reason whatsoever why a big or storeor even, for that matter, a small oneshould effectively profiteer at the expense of a failed asylum seeker who has scarcely two brass farthings, to employ the old-fashioned expression, to rub together.
	I want to conclude on the very practical point that the Government have often raised. Ministers have said, Well, we've got to be clear about this. Yes, people need to be supported, but on the other hand we cannot allow scope for a pull factor that will draw people to this country. The suggestion from Ministersnot, in my view, evidence-basedhas been that the ability to use cash in this context would constitute a pull factor. My response is as follows. First, in 2000 and 2001, when the Government used the previous vouchers, applications actually went up, so the notion that the use of vouchers is itself a deterrent factor likely to conduce to a reduction in applications is not supported by the empirical evidence acquired to date.
	Secondly, by virtue of the section 4 criteria themselves, it simply cannot be true that possessing cash constitutes a pull factor bringing people here. It has   already been decided of people in receipt of section 4 support that they are unsuccessful applicants, and they have accepted the reality that they will have to return to their country of origin in due course. The notion that having cash can cause them to stay, and that the absence of cash would prevent that eventuality, seems logically flawed.
	I say to Ministers and colleagues in a constructive spirit that we have a view from another quarter on this subject in the 2000 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. On the pull factor, the high commissioner has declared, on the record, that in deciding whether to come here as asylum applicants, people are more likely to be swayed by the presence of their own communities than by reception conditions or benefits. The Minister said earlier from a sedentary positionI am being very fair, because by mentioning his sedentary I am making it more audible than it would otherwise have beenthat the high commissioner was talking about the old vouchers. If, when the Minister winds up, he can provide a compelling thesis in support of his policy, I will be happy to be influenced by it. I have not seen anything so far from the Government to suggest that that is very likely. He knows that I agree with other aspects of Government immigration policy, a good deal of which is thoroughly sensible and measured and in the national interest. So far, this measure has not been well crafted. I much prefer retaining flexibility and I applaud the noble spirit behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the very welcome remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

James Brokenshire: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), although I hope to be much briefer than he was to allow the Minister time to conclude this part of the debate.
	Members made important comments on the stigma that can attach to asylum seekers in the operation of a voucher scheme. My hon. Friend said that vouchers are vulnerable to fraud. That comment struck me, because if vouchers are vulnerable to fraud, cash is even more vulnerable. Indeed, asylum seekers dealt with under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, if they are in possession of cash, could become even more vulnerable. They could be preyed on by those who are aware that they have cash and who might seek to exploit that situation. In addition, this is an emotive and sensitive matter, as cash payments could be exploited by those wanting to stir up and magnify racist feelings in this country.
	A balance has to be struck in respect of the scheme's operational practicalities. I think that it is right to keep cash out of the scheme, but the review of its operation should determine whether the anomalies pointed out by hon. Members of all parties arise. That is why I support amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and not amendment (a).

Tony McNulty: Whether or not I agree with them, there have been some excellent contributions to the debate. With due respect to the last speaker, I shall deal with the comments made by the grown-ups. What he said was not helpful and without substance one way or the other.
	I shall begin by clearing up a couple of canards. It is not true that some people covered by section 4 would be tortured if they were returned home. By definition, they are failed asylum seekers and, whatever the reasons for their removal, there is no reason to fear that they would suffer torture or any other mistreatment specified by the refugee convention. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned that there might be difficulties with the safety of the removal process, among other things, and I accept that. In addition, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that problems may arise in connection with people who suffer under section 4 for a long period of time. Initially, section 4 was designed to cover people pending removal and to apply for a day, a month or some other period, but the details of that provision are not germane to this debate.
	There has been a good deal of background noise to this discussion. It is fundamentally wrong to conduct a disingenuous debate about the reintroduction of vouchers, and bodies such as Oxfam, the T and G union and the Refugee Council should know better, as that is not what the Government propose. I concur 100 per cent. with the reasons behind the decision some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to get rid of the universal use of vouchers by all asylum seekers. That matter belongs to an entirely different debate. The Government believe that the cash-based regime applicable to all people going through the asylum process should be distinct from the process endured by those receiving section 4 support, as such people have exhausted all the legal processes, including appeals, and have no right to remain in this country.
	The starting point is that vouchers have always been a feature of the support for people covered by section 4, but we should go back to first principles. Where possible, section 4 support consists of the provision of full board and accommodation. It is not true that the people involved get a mere pittance in vouchers, and no more. The hon. Member for Buckingham suggested that destitution awaited them otherwise, but that is not the reality. The fact is that, when people covered by section 4 cannot get full board and accommodation where they are located, the difference is made up by means of vouchers.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, the law provides for vouchers to be given in lieu of full support and accommodation only when that entitlement cannot be provided. The vouchers also cover the bare essentials when it comes to toiletries, but that is not enough. I come bearing gifts, albeit perhaps only in one hand rather than both, recognising those points and extending the system in response to the serious concerns expressed. We are broadening the system to provide things in kind, which are not currently allowed under the regulation, such as the bus pass to get to an urgent medical appointment, to which my hon. Friend referred, and broader goods and services.
	Concern has been expressed that the narrow definition of food and essential toiletries could be extended to cover everything possible. The definition will be made clearer in regulations, but it will certainly cover nappies and other essential goods for new mothers, where there has been confusion, about which a fair point was made. However, apart from that specific context, it is wrong to apply the worst elements of the previous universal voucher system to these proposals. That is absolutely wrong. Those who provide section 4 support give vouchers as part of their contract when they cannot provide full board and accommodation, so there is no further costto answer the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). To ask for regular reports on costs and on what constitute wider goods and services is entirely redundant. The asylum statistics already include quarterly reports on costs and numbers, so all the elements under amendment (b) that he set out so eloquently are utterly unnecessary; they are already being done or are about to be done. Amendment (b) is unnecessary.
	We think that the current position under section 4 is about right in terms of expanding and broadening support. By the way, it is not the case that thousands of people are languishing under section 4 support. Many of those who have returned voluntarilyprincipally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow suggested, to northern Iraqwere on section 4. About 700 northern Iraqis have already left the UK under the voluntary return scheme. I could not swear for every one of them, but the core of them were under section 4, so it is wrong to say that section 4 support locks people in limbo and that they cannot go anywhere, in any way, shape or form, and that they live in penury and destitution. I do not pretend that the regime under which they live is terribly pleasantit is meant to be temporary, although I take the point about longevity. Although we accept the Lords amendments, we understand the limitations due to the narrow focus of the current regulations.
	I do not take my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow's point, as suggested in his amendment, that we may have the option to take the cash route under section 4. We do not think that is appropriate, because we want the narrow, narrow cohort of failed asylum seekers to be controlled and managed under the existing regime. Yes, we want to broaden the scheme, not least to take into account his comments about the need for proper support, but amendment (a) goes too far.
	Due to the limitations of the regime that has been in place since April, I commend to the House the broadening of support to cover things in kind and goods and services, as defined in regulation. I assure the House, and certainly my hon. Friends, that that will cover things such as bus passes for serious and necessary appointments and all the points made about lack of definition such as where essential toiletries finish and other elements begin. However, for the robustness and integrity of the system, it is right and proper that people on section 4 support, who have exhausted all avenues and have no substantive legal right to remain in the country, should, as a prelude to their departure, be on a different regime to those who are still going through the system. The new targeted contracts, under the National Asylum Support Service, will afford people support and dignity while the section 4 regime prevails and we concentrate more on their removal.

John Bercow: I welcome the broadening of support, but still feel that the rather arbitrary prohibitionfor that is what it ison the use of cash is unnecessarily restrictive. Will the Minister explain precisely how the use of such a small sum of cash could constitute a pull factor?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have been very careful in my words and I have not discussed pull factors in the context of the Lords amendment. I would turn things around to say that it is desirable for our asylum system to have a distinct regime of support for those who have exhausted all the elementsappeal, legal process and everything elseand are ready to go at whatever stage of readiness, as hon. Members have suggested. We do not demur from the fact that there must be such supportin a past life, not the hon. Gentleman, but the Conservative party would have demurred even from thatbut it must be right that the preparation for departure and removal involves a different regime from that used for those who are still going through the system. That was the substance of the objection to vouchers for everyone that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so rightly got rid of in the terms that were suggested. We think that the regimes should be different.
	I am not convinced that adding cash beyond the extension of support that we are already offering goes   any further to provide the support that section 4 applicants need while they are waiting between the exhaustion of all their appeals and their departure. I repeat that the starting premise is that, where possible under the NASS contracts, they get full board and accommodation. Some hon. Membersnot the hon. Member for Buckingham or my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstowhave suggested that those people somehow start in penury and destitution and that, as a sign of good will, we should give them a few bob and a voucher. That is not the case. A proper, comprehensive support mechanism is in place, as there should be, for those individuals. It is not their fault that, for whatever reason, they have exhausted the application process and no longer have legal rights to remain, but they must go and they should not be in penury just because of that. We suggest that such support, added to by vouchers where full board and accommodation cannot be provided, is far too narrow.

John McDonnell: I want to place on record the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned. We understand the Government's argument. We understand the way that the Minister has handled the issue and the concessions that have been made and we are grateful to the Government for them. The Minister has taken a thoughtful approach, but we are concerned about why the Government are closing down the option at this stage. To be honest, most of us have found from our surgeries that the minor things display dignity or the lack of dignity and humanity or the lack of humanity: the child who cannot take in 50p for the school trip, or the parent who cannot buy their child a cup of tea when they are out shopping, because they have not got the cash. Such things will not be covered by vouchers and the other means of support. I realise that the system may apply for a limited period before people leave the country, but we cannot understand the Government's attempt to end that expression of humanity to those people and not to offer them that opportunity.

Tony McNulty: Again, I would reverse the argument. Under the NASS contracts, a substantive package of support is provided to those who find that they require section 4 support. Such support is supposed to be all-embracingand to the extent that it can be, it isfor the duration of the time before people depart. The fact that that cannot always be so led to vouchers and some additional support for food or essential toiletries. Given not least the remarks made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, a range of issues have been raised about such support being far too narrow, even in the context of the broad package of support under section 4. That is why we have moved to providing support in kind, as well as by vouchers, with goods and services, rather than using the narrow definition of food and accommodation. That basket of support is available. That is right and proper. Equally, underlying that

Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: I will give way in a moment. It would be useful to let me finish the sentence.
	Equally, underlying that, we are tryingagain, this is outwith the Lords amendmentwith the new targeted contracts to get far more direct contact with individuals on section 4 support and to get them involved in the NASS contracts. It is no longer simply the case that someone can be sent a letter in the hope that they will receive it so that they will know exactly what they need to do and in what circumstances. The whole contact management operation is getting far more sophisticated within NASS, but all those support mechanisms and contact processes relate to the departure and removal of people who have exhausted all their claims and no longer have a right or any legal locus to remain in this country. I will now give way to the hon. Gentlemanand do not make me regret it, please.

Evan Harris: I fear that I cannot guarantee the Minister that. We all appreciate the concession that has been made, but the hon. Members for Buckingham (John   Bercow) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were asking what the justification was for the Government to rule out cash. The Minister said that it was not about a pull factor, but in his letter to The Guardian and The Times, he said:
	Support for failed asylum seekers is limited and temporary to ensure that it does not act as an incentive to remain.
	If he is not saying that that is his view, why is he ruling out cash full stop?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman has half made me regret giving way, but his intervention gives me a chance to look at the letter again. The letter goes to exactly what I was saying. It is perfectly right and proper that there should be distinct support mechanisms for those applying for asylum in the normal fashion and for those who have exhausted every element of the processes, legal and otherwise, and have absolutely no legitimate right to be in this country. They will not be people who fear torture following removal, otherwise they would not have section 4 support. The regime can and should betaking into account the points that I made about its temporary nature to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstowdistinct from the process that everyone else is going through in the normal fashion.
	That goes to the heart of the criticism and dispute about everybody being on vouchers in the first place. That was seen as penalising people who were applying for asylum in the normal way, because of the ineffectiveness and impracticalities of vouchers. We accept that point and I do not demur one ounce or jot from the reason that my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary suggested for moving away from vouchers in the first place. However, it is not enough to pick up one little bit of an overall package for those on section 4 support. That is the point. There is an overall packageit is not just the vouchers. That package is temporary and it is about a prelude to a removal. With the extensions to the support mechanisms, for the critical reasons that hon. Members have suggested, it is right and proper to expand that provision to support in kind in goods and services. That gives us a broader sweep in relation to the gaps where a full support package of full board and accommodation cannot be provided. In that context, we will be in a far happier position in relation to the support mechanisms put in place under section 4 if we accept the Lords amendment. I offer that to the House and commend it.
	For the reasons that I have suggested, we will resist amendment (a), which extends the support to cash, and we will certainly dismiss, or resistI have dismissed it alreadyamendment (b) from the Conservatives about the report and so on. In substance, all those elements are being carried out in various ways by accepting the Lords amendment and by our regular reporting on the asylum statistics.
	The matter is very sensitive. I concur with what people said about the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I was going to make a nice joke about Walthamstow market, but I will pass on that because we are too serious. I commend most of the other contributions, save that of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), who really should not have bothered, in what is a very serious debate. I commend the Lords amendment to the House and ask it to resist amendments (a) and (b).

Neil Gerrard: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, but I have to say that I do not understand his reasoning. I will withdraw the amendment purely on the grounds that I do not believe that parliamentary arithmetic suggests that it will be carried. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to [Special Entry].
	Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 40 agreed to [One with Special Entry].

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 6th June 2005 (Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.[Joan Ryan]
	Question agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so as quickly and quietly as possible?

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 19. If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2
	  
	General Purpose

Lords amendment: No 1.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6, 19, 34 and 64.

Jim Knight: Before I speak to the first group of amendments, I would like to thank peers in the other place, particularly Baronesses Byford and Miller and my colleague, Lord Bach, for their hard work on the Bill since it left the House. They have continued to take a constructive and collaborative approach during the Bill's passage and it has been significantly improved through their scrutiny and hard work.
	I am happy to accept all the Lords amendments today, as they were all Government amendments, and I look forward to Royal Assent shortly. That will pave the way for establishing Natural England later this year, with the benefits that that will bring, ending a period of uncertainty for the staff in the affected organisations.
	Amendment No. 1 responds to issues raised in the other place and makes it clear that Natural England may work with local communities, both urban and rural, to secure social and economic benefits through management of the natural environment. Amendments Nos. 2 and 34 remove the powers of the Secretary of State to enable Natural England to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for experimental schemes as currently available to the Countryside Agency. We are convinced that this power and the similar power in clause 94 are not needed. Amendment No. 3 clarifies the circumstances in which it would be permissible for Natural England, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to charge for providing advice.
	The other place debated at length the role that the Commission for Rural Communities should play in rural proofing, ending up with amendment No. 6 to clause 19(c). This makes explicit the CRC's role in monitoring progress against the Government's rural proofing commitment.

Philip Hollobone: The Minister mentioned that the compulsory purchase powers did not need to be included in the Bill. Is that because he can access those powers through other legislation, or because he does not envisage compulsory purchase by the agency involved?

Jim Knight: The powers have never been used by the Countryside Agency. We have been convinced that it is not necessary for Natural England to take them forward.
	Amendment No. 19 and the consequential amendments Nos. 34 and 64 add national park authorities to the list of authorities eligible for financial support under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's so-called Bellwin scheme for emergency assistance. Amendments No. 34 and 64, which is a minor consequential repeal of a word in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, will remove this anomaly, in effect restoring the pre-1997 position in respect of the Bellwin scheme.

James Paice: I endorse the Minister's remarks about the work done in the other place. That is a first class example of the value of the other House, and the knowledge and diligence that peers apply to our legislative process. The Bill is considerably improved since it left this place, largely through the power of persuasion, rather than votes in the other place. That is good.
	I am delighted that, as the Minister said, virtually every amendment that we are considering is a Government amendment. I am also delighted that almost all of them were tabled in response to arguments advanced by my noble Friends, and in many cases by my colleagues and me when the Bill was before this House. Perhaps with slightly less power of persuasion, or dare I say less power behind us, we were less successful here than in the other place, but I am grateful that the Minister and his noble Friend have agreed with them.
	Amendment No. 1 is an example of the point that I made a moment ago. I argued strongly in Committee for Natural England to work closely with local businesses and communities. I am grateful to the Minister for conceding the point. Amendment No. 1 is a sensible step forward. On compulsory purchase, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), whom I am pleased to see in his place, argued that it was not necessary. The Minister resisted, but I am delighted that he has conceded the point.
	I will not go through all the amendments. Suffice to say that we believe that they are sensible changes to the legislation. Some of them are extremely minor and need not detain the House.
	We remain of the view that Natural England, which is a very large new organisation, has a lot to do to prove its merit, and many concerns have been expressed in this House and the other place about different aspects of it. An amendment has not been tabled on the issue of conflict. The Sandford principle was widely debated in both Houses, and we have discussed it with the Minister. I wish that such an amendment had been tabled, but I recognise reality when I face it and understand that such an amendment would not have been successful. Nevertheless Natural England has a vital role to play, and I think it fair to say that we will all watch it closely, because, bar a nod and a wink from Buckingham palace, the provision will become law once this group of amendments is agreed, which will allow Natural England to go ahead according to its original timetable. We are taking a major step forward by agreeing this group of amendments.
	On the Commission for Rural Communities, to which the Minister also referred in his opening remarks, our concern is whether that organisation really will have the ability to rural proof. Again, we will watch with interest to see how it develops over the first year or two and whether it has the authority to hold the Government to account and to challenge any Department on whether it is really delivering a service that is powerful enough and important enough for our rural communities. The role of the Commission for Rural Communities will be central, and we shall watch it carefully.
	I am happy to agree with the Minister on the importance of the amendments. I am also happy to agree with the Lords on those amendments, not least because most of them include proposals that we introduced in this place.

Christopher Huhne: Liberal Democrat Members also support the amendmentsconsensus is clearly breaking outand I join the Minister and thehon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in stating that the Lords have done an excellent job.
	Lords amendment No. 1 is particularly welcome, because it brings consultation with local communities into the general purpose of the Bill. We would have liked climate change to have been included, too, but we understand that the commitment to consultation is worthwhile. Similarly, we agree on the issue of the elimination of compulsory purchase.
	As we said on Second Reading and on Report, the provision on cross-departmental rural proofing is a welcome addition. I echo the view expressed on those occasions and by my noble Friends in the Lords that the abolition of Post Office card accounts by the Department for Work and Pensions is a classic example of a failure to rural proof policy, and the provision may help to rectify such errors. We certainly want the commission for rural communities to perform that role across the spectrum of legislation that may affect rural communities. The licensing laws provide another obvious such example, because they may require small shops that trade the occasional bottle of sherry as a convenience for elderly villagers to acquire a department to fill in new paperwork, so that is another example in which a little bit of rural proofing might have come in handy.
	In general, we feel comfortable about the amendments, and we propose to support them.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 15
	  
	Guidance

Lords amendment: No. 4.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5, 7 to 10, 28, 32, 38, 39 and 56 to 63.

Jim Knight: During the Lords Committee, we were asked to consider whether any guidance that is published bythe Secretary of State should be published contemporaneously with the issuing of it. We could not accept that wording, but could not argue with the principle. We believe that there should be a degree of consistency in the Bill and once we decided that it was right to publish such decisions as soon as practicable, we thought it sensible to apply it to any decisions made by the Secretary of State under this Bill. Therefore, this group of Government amendments adds various requirements that the Secretary of State should publish directions, guidance and lists that she may issue under this Bill as soon as reasonably practical after their issue.
	Amendment No. 38 to paragraph 16(1) of schedule 1 and the identical amendment No. 39 to paragraph 16(1) of schedule 2 are purely grammatical. They have no effect on the Bill's text other than to improve the grammar, and I am sure that all hon. Members will approve of that. Amendments Nos. 56 to 63 are minor amendments to schedule 11 and address two technical issues. The first three amendments of that group are small clarifications to three paragraphs in schedule 11 of minor and consequential amendments. They will ensure that there is consistency of application within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, clarifying whether particular provisions apply to the 12-mile territorial waters around England and Wales.
	The remaining five amendments contain small consequential amendments in the schedule 11 paragraphs that make minor amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to the protection of limestone pavements. The National Assembly for Wales has relatively recently confirmed that it wishes to benefit from the existing alteration to subsection (1) of section 34 of the 1981 Act so that Wales will benefit equally from the enhanced protection for limestone pavements. The substituted subsection (1) will enable pavements to be more easily protected both in England and Wales.
	Amendment No. 28 is designed to reflect the fact that the new Inland Waterways Advisory Council will be an advisory rather than an executive non-departmental public body and ensure that it can be appropriately supported. The amendment substitutes wording customarily used to authorise Ministers to support advisory NDPBs.
	I commend this group of amendments to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 44
	  
	Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides

Lords amendment: No. 11.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14, 40 and 41.

Jim Knight: Clause 44 contains the powers available to inspectors authorised by the Secretary of State in England, and the National Assembly in Wales, to investigate an offence under section 43 of the possession of a prescribed pesticide. During the Committee stage in the other place, suites of amendments were introduced in response to concerns raised about the apparent wide-ranging nature of these powers. A further two amendments were introduced on Report, to require inspectors to have regard to the codes of practice under which they will be operating. I will deal briefly with each of the amendments in turn.
	Amendment No. 11 rules out on the face of the Bill the possibility of speculative visits, an issue about which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr.   Paice) was especially concerned in Committee. Much effort was expended in finding a form of words that achieved the right balance between protecting the rights of the individual while not constraining inspectors to such a degree that they could not enter unless they believed that a prescribed pesticide would be found on a particular premises. For example, we do not wish to prevent inspectors from entering where a poisoned bait has been found at or near several properties where pesticides are likely to be used and where it is not certain on which of these properties the pesticide would be found. The form of words adopted will allow entry in those circumstances while allowing inspectors to be challenged to justify what the grounds for suspicion are. We also looked closely at all the powers that are available to an inspector once he or she is on the premises to see whether any should be disapplied in respect of the pesticide offence in clause 43.
	Amendment No. 12 removes the ability to require a statement of truth when questioning people about substances found on their premises. That power was considered unnecessary in view of the power to require information already contained in clause 44(1)(b).
	Amendment No. 13 introduces three new subsections that clarify the rights of the person in the event that the substance is seized from their premises as evidence of an offence under clause 43 by setting out the procedure relating to its retention. That will ensure that property rights are not eroded by the investigation process. A person may make a claim to have the seized substance returned, for example by providing evidence that they have a defence under clause 43(3).
	During the course of the Bill's passage, we have made it clear that my Department intends to issue codes of practice to inspectors exercising their powers in relation to the possession of prescribed pesticides and to wildlife inspectors exercising their powers as set out in schedule 5. It is appropriate that inspectors must have regard to such codes. Amendments Nos. 14 and 40 therefore not only provide the mechanism by which the Secretary of State can issue codes of practice relevant to the duties of inspectors, but place an obligation on inspectors to have regard to any provision of such codes when discharging their functions.
	Amendment No. 41 extends current powers of constables to obtain warrants under section 19(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to four other Acts where police currently have only very limited powers of entry: the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, the Deer Act 1991 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The powers would allow constables, under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, to enter and search premises for evidence where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed and that evidence may be found on those premises. Those extended powers would ensure that wildlife protection legislation is complied with and that wildlife crime can be more effectively investigated. They also provide greater consistency across the main wildlife legislation.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the issues behind the amendments, which I welcome. As he kindly said, the lead amendment concerns an issue that we debated at considerable length in Committee: the possibility of what the Minister described in Committee as a fishing expeditionhe just used the word speculativeby inspectors. I am grateful to him for accepting that and tabling, as he undertook to do, amendment No. 11.
	As he said, we also debated in Committee several other aspects of the powers that are being given to inspectors. On Report, we again debated the possibility that they were being given more powers than the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) has given them in the Animal Welfare Bill. I remain of the view that there is a distinction between the two pieces of legislation that I do not fully understand. I should have thought that it would be easier for the public to understand the legislation if it gave inspectors the same powers.

Jim Knight: Just to assist the hon. Gentleman and others, we have put some guidance on this in the Library to help people to interpret what is, I agree, extremely complicated legislation.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he has put the guidance in the Library. I hope that he will put it elsewhere as well; otherwise it will not be much use to most people. I understand and appreciate his point, but it does not detract from my question: why is it necessary to have two pieces of legislation, bearing in mind that, in its widest context, it is all to do with animal welfare issues? We are concerned about the matter.
	Amendment No. 14 about the codes of practice is welcome. It is sensible that the code could be admissible in court proceedings. Obviously we shall observe carefully to ascertain whether the powers are used and whether the fact that the inspector must have regard to the code is sufficient in practice.
	Amendment No. 41 deals with extending the search warrant to certain other Acts. That is a new idea, which we did not consider here, from the other place. I shall not claim that it was our ideait was Government inspired and I can understand its logic. It underlines my point about having separate legislation. Most people would argue that the protection of badgers or the conservation of seals, although perhaps not the Deer Act 1991, are to do with animal welfare, and that to have a Bill on that subject with one set of powers for inspectors and another measure with similar provisions can only add to the confusion. I do not argue that inspectors do not need the powers but we have added to confusion through the Government's approach.
	Nevertheless, overall, the group of amendments is welcome and I am happy to support it.

Christopher Huhne: I am also happy to support the amendments, with which we broadly agree. There is a contrast between the provisions for the inspectors' powers and the Government's previous stubbornness on what is now the Animal Welfare Act. They resisted the cause of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) to allow witnesses to intervene in the case of cruelty when it is clearly visible, for example, in a garden or an open yard.

James Paice: The Animal Welfare Bill is not yet an Act because it has not been before the other place, which will consider it after Easter. Perhaps the power of my argument and that of the hon. Gentleman will persuade the Government to amend that measure to match this one.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me. I hope that we can prevail on Ministers to do as he suggests.
	The amendments show clear proportionality in examining the code of practice, which we greatly welcome, and limiting the ground for entry to property to search for proscribed pesticides in situations of reasonable suspicion. We are therefore happy to support them.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments 12 to 14 agreed to.
	New Clause

Denotification

Lords amendment: No. 15.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 16.

Jim Knight: The amendments do two important things. The first is a small facilitating measure that will benefit landowners and occupiers, especially by removing the implication that the power to denotify SSSI land should be available only if it was previously of special interest. In essence, and without detracting from the main purpose of the provision, it provides for a simple remedy for any landowner or occupier who discovers that a part of his land has been mistakenly included in the boundary of an SSSI, for example, because of a cartographical discrepancy between paper and digitised maps.
	The second amendment benefits the public interest. By the strong will of Parliament, shown in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the conservation bodies have been required to serve SSSI notifications on every owner or occupier of the land in question. Despite their best efforts, that can be a tall order, given the paucity of comprehensive sources of land tenure information. The amendment introduces a saving to ensure that, provided that all reasonable steps have been taken to discharge the notification duty, SSSIs, present or future, will not be rendered invalid by reason of it later being discovered that some relevant party's interests were not identified when the notification was served.
	Importantly, the provision protects any such missed party from any liability for things that happened before commencement, and they become fully liable as a notified owner or occupier only after they have come to light and the notification papers have been served on them by the relevant conservation body.

James Paice: When the Minister talks about cartographical discrepancies, I hope to God that he is not talking about the Rural Payments Agency; otherwise there would be so many denotifications and renotifications that we would be here for ever. That organisation seems to be completely incapable of getting its digital mapping correct. Nevertheless, I understand the point of Lords amendment No. 15, and I support it.
	On Lords amendment No. 16, I understand completely what the Minister is trying to achieve. The inability to serve a notice because an owner cannot be traced should not result in an SSSI being rendered invalid. However, I want to challenge the Minister on a couple of aspects of the provision. The first involves the use of the word failure in the phrase
	failure to serve certain notices in connection with SSSIs.
	It seems an odd word to use when we are really talking about an inability to serve the notices because a particular owner or occupier cannot be traced. I wonder why the word failure has been used.
	The second, more important, aspect relates to the use of the term reasonable steps. Who is to make a judgment on that? Am I right to assume from what the Minister has said, and from the way in which this provision is drafted, that the only form of appeal would be by judicial review? If an owner came forward and said, Well, this is all very well, but I wasn't notified, and I've been at home for the last six months, who would decide whether the conservation body had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that every owner and occupier had been notified? I do not want to suggest that anyone would intentionally set out to fail in that task, but the practicalities might dictate that the notice could not be served. I can well understand that, in some parts of the country, a small parcel of land could be overlooked. An organisation might think that it has covered all the owners involved, when along comes an owner who has a bit of land in the middle of an area. He might then say, There is no reason why they should not have been able to serve the notification on me. I haven't been anywhere. I haven't disappeared.
	I am worried that the provision is too open-ended and that the conservation body could still serve the notice, and do whatever it wanted to do under the provisions in subsection (2), without necessarily having been as diligent as we might wish in ensuring that every owner or occupier had been notified. While I accept that nothing will happen until after the commencement of this section, that is a relatively minor point. What is important is what will happen in future. Before we concede to this amendment, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how he envisages it operating in practice. What grounds for appeal will be open to an individual who feels that he should have, and could have, been served a copy of the notification but did not get one?

Christopher Huhne: I, too, would be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Generally, we support these amendments, which we find helpful, but I wonder whether they will cover the thousands of sites and notices already in existence before the Bill is enacted. That would certainly be welcomed by Natural England, as it would ensure proper protection of all the sites that, as we have heard in the House, the Government have been struggling to bring up to scratch.

Jim Knight: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond as best I can to the points that hon. Members have raised.
	In response to the question from the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), the use of the word failure is technically right. If a conservation body has not managed to notify the owner or occupier, technically it has failed to fulfil its duty under the law as it is written. We are therefore dealing with failure, and we might as well call it what it is.
	On the second question about who will determine ultimately whether reasonable steps have been taken, the hon. Gentleman is right. If representations to the conservation bodies are not successful, it will ultimately be for the courts to determine. As an independent body, English Natureor, later, Natural Englandwill need to make its own judgments and decisions. A range of inquiries and searches are possible, however, in order to discover ownership or occupancy information. Clearly, it is reasonable that all those possible routes should be pursued. If representations made to those conservation bodieswhich, one hopes, would identify whether something in the public domain had been missedfail, the courts would decide the matter.
	The final question from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) was whether existing triple SIs would be covered. The short answer is yes.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.
	New Clause

Criteria for designation National Parks

Lords amendment: No. 17

James Paice: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker): With this we can consider amendment (b) to the Lords amendment and Lords amendments Nos. 18, 33 and 35 to 37.

James Paice: I presume that it is in order for me to address the whole group, as all the amendments in it relate to national parks.
	One of the reasons that I wanted to table an amendment, apart from on its own meritsto which I will return in a momentwas that most of this section is completely new to the House. The reason for that, as I am sure that the Minister would tell us, is that the Meyrick judgment handed down by the courts came after we dealt with the Bill in the House. The Government took the decision that the Bill was a suitable vehicle to revert, as they intend, the law to what it was prior to the Meyrick judgment.
	I understand that the noble Lord Bach told the other place on Monday night that the Government have been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Meyrick case. Lord Justice Keene was quoted at column 50 in House of Lords Hansard on 20 March:
	The grounds are properly arguable and, in any event, raise issues of importance which ought to be considered by the Court of Appeal.
	We are considering these amendments in the absence of knowing the final outcome of the Meyrick judgment.
	Nevertheless, I agree with the Government that the Meyrick judgment, as it stands at the moment, is anomalous. It goes way beyond what any of us has previously understood as being the criteria for national parks, and refers to this high degree of naturalness. The judge in the case, again quoted at column 50, said that,
	well-maintained historic parkland providing the setting for a grade 1 listed building, and well-ordered dairy fields of dairy farms would seem to be the antithesis of naturalness.[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 50.]
	Arguably he is right, but if we accept that as the criteria for national parks, there probably would not be any. We all know that the British landscape has been affected by mankind since time immemorial. Certainly, all the evidence suggests that since 12000 BC, when mesolithic man first invaded the wild woods and started cutting them down, the British landscape has been in a state of change and affected by mankind. To refer to naturalness seems a bit odd in that context.
	Having said that I entirely agree that Meyrick goes too far, I also believe that the amendments go too far in the other direction. I accept that the Government's intention is simply to return the law to where it was before the Meyrick judgmentalthough if they won the appeal such action would not be necessary, because that would emphasise that the pre-Meyrick legislation stood, or that the interpretation of it stood. In many ways, I hope that the Government do win the appeal, but they tabled the amendments using the Bill as a vehicle, so it is therefore right for this House to have an opportunity to debate them.
	Lords amendment No. 17, which would insert a new clause on criteria for designating national parks, suggests measures that I believe would extend the criteria for designation beyond where they were before Meyrick. Indeed, I think they could almost be seen to be opening the whole of rural England to such designation, which goes too far in the opposite direction. I believe passionately in national parks, but they need to have specific attributesto which I shall returnthat identify them as being areas of particular importance. If we allow the criteria to be too lax and end up being able to designate much larger swathes of rural England in the coming years, the designation of national parks as a whole will be brought into disrepute, and will not be treated with the respect to which it is entitled. That would be a great sadness, which is why I tabled amendments (a) and (b).
	Lords amendment No. 17 proposes that Natural England may,
	when applying subsection (2)(a) in relation to an area, take into account its wildlife and cultural heritage.
	I think that most of us would accept that it is sensible to include wildlife in a provision relating to national parks, for obvious reasons. It is the term cultural heritage that I find more difficult to understand. I am sure that the Minister, who has briefing papers, will point out that it was the last Conservative Government who first introduced the phrase to national parks legislation. He nodshe was going to throw that at me, so I am glad that I got in first. That is perfectly true, but anyone who reads Lord Bach's speeches and the briefing that we have all received from the Council for National Parks will observe that the terms cultural heritage and landscape appear to be interchangeable. It seems to me that the Government mean landscape, and I would therefore prefer that word to be used in the Bill.
	We all understand what landscape means. It deals with the issue of naturalness, because we all know that the landscape of England is affected, has been affected and will be maintained by mankind. There can thus be no dispute about the interpretation of the word, whereas I believe that the phrase cultural heritage is open to much more question.
	New subsection 2A(b) provides that Natural England may
	take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public.
	Of course, we want the public to be able to enjoy the special qualities of a national park, but that ability has always been there. I do not understand why the Government want to open it up to that extent. The issue of enjoyment of those special qualities was clearly included in the criteria specified in the Countryside Act 1949. There have been various reports on national parks: the Addison, Dower and Hobhouse reports, and more recently the Sandford and Edwards reports. There seems to be a common theme in all that work, namely, the importance of special areas with an element of wildness, beautiful and suitable for public access at the time of designation.
	That is very important point and a constant theme, so we are forced to ask what it is that the Government are changing, given that such a provision already exists in legislation. It seems that, in using the phrase
	take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities,
	the Government are implying that in future the public enjoyment of such special qualities could be opened up considerably. That, in turn, raises the possibility of damaging the special qualities that caused an area's designation in the first place.
	Amendment No. 17 widens the criteria too far the other way, although I readily except that Meyrick needs to be redressed if the appeal is lost. Of course, if the Government win the appeal, this whole debate could become irrelevant. Indeed, the Minister may wish to tell the House this afternoon how he sees the legislation working. If we pass all this and the Government then win the Meyrick appeal, what impact will that have? In a sense, two different pieces of legislation would apply to national parks.
	Amendment No. 33 would insert a new clause defining:
	Natural beauty in the countryside.
	As I understand itthe Minister will correct me if I am wrongthis, too, is part of the Government's desire to rebalance the Meyrick judgment, with which I wholly agree. Indeed, I do not disagree with any aspect of the new clause's definition of natural beauty. That is fine, but why, having included that new clause, is amendment No. 17 still necessary? I appreciate that I have spoken first and that the Minister has not had a chance to respond, but I hope that he will indeed explain why amendment No. 17 is necessary, given that amendment No. 33 defines natural beauty, and that such a definition is fundamental to the criteria for designating national parks.
	We do not oppose the idea of correcting Meyrick or of national parks, but if national parks are to retain the value and esteem that people attach to them, they should remain areas with special qualities. My concern is that the Government, in their desire to rebalance the legislation following Meyrick, have gone too far the other way. In future years, attempts could be made to designate areas that perhaps do not have the special quality that we attribute to existing national parks. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why it is necessary for the Government to go as far as they are going with their amendments.

Christopher Huhne: I shall, if I may, address some of the issues arising from other provisions that have already been approved by the Lords.
	The new clauses relating to the criteria for designating national parks have allowed for a satisfactory definition that gives us back the standard that had been established in this country for almost 60 years. The Liberal Democrats' only disappointment is that we are not discussing an amendment enabling local people to be elected to the boards of national parks, as an alternative to the Secretary of State making appointments. It is regrettable that neither the Government nor, it appears, the Conservatives could support such an amendment. However, in essence, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has rightly said, the new clauses re-establish the status quo before the Meyrick High Court judgment, which ruled that the Hinton estate in the New Forest need not form part of the South Downs national park on the ground that it was not sufficiently natural.
	Amendment (a) would not allow a return to the status quo before Meyrick. Substituting landscape for cultural heritage would mean that national parks would be designated on the same basis as in the past. English Heritage estimates that the historical designation includes 11,000 listed buildings, 4,000 scheduled monuments and 30 registered parks and gardens. Although the parks and gardens might reasonably be regarded as landscape, I do not see how the monuments and listed buildings could be. Therefore, the amendment would be unduly restrictive, and inconsistent with the criteria used for the designation of national parks in the past. It would be regrettable to introduce that inconsistency now.
	Amendment (b) is also unnecessary, as it would remove Natural England's ability to take account of the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities for people to understand and enjoy a national park's special qualities. National parks are not wildernesses. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made an interesting and perhaps Freudian slip when he suggested that wildness was involved. For example, the landscape around Chatsworth is outstanding and beautiful, but it could not be called wild.
	National parks are designed to be resources for the enjoyment of all, and it seems odd for the Conservatives to attempt to deny it. That is why we support the Lords amendments.

Nick Herbert: I rise to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I shall not get involved in the somewhat arcane discussion about what is natural and what is wild, as that has been discussed enough already. However, I want to explore the practical implications of changing how we designate national parks.
	First, I emphasise that the amendments made in the other place do not affect existing national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Council for National Parks sent us a briefing that was helpfulalthough I disagree with much of itin which it said that the amendments were common sense and designed to protect our existing network of national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty. However, that is not so: the amendments would change the rules of the game after the inquiry into the proposed South Downs national park has ended, but they do not affect existing national parks at all.
	The retrospective nature of the provision, and the way in which it has been introduced, is to be deplored. It is the result of a court case, and although we may agree or disagree with the decision, the Government have determined, rapidly, to amend the application of the law. They have done that in the other place, without much debate. I was a member of the Standing Committee considering this Bill, and the issue did not arise, yet it has profound implications for the future designation of national parks.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to be rushing? An appeal has been lodged, so would it not be better to see what the outcome is?

Nick Herbert: I agree precisely with my hon. Friend. An appeal is under way, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made the point very well that the amendment sits oddly with that fact. We should wait for the result of the appeal, and the amendment would throw the designation of the proposed South Downs national park into chaos and confusion.
	I disagree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) in his interpretation of what the Government are trying to do. The amendment does not restore the previous designation of national parks; it introduces a new form of designation. Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks have always been seen as distinct. National parks were wilder and more remote areas, while areas of outstanding natural beauty were equally attractive, but more managed, landscapes.
	This matter is of great importance to my constituency, as more than half of it lies within the South Downs area of natural beauty and well over half will lie within the proposed national park. The practical effect of the amendments is that a redesignation of the national park boundaries will be possible, after a long inquiry91 sitting days and 23 visitshas already completed its business. If, as a consequence of the amendments, the national park boundary is moved south of Arundel, it may prevent the completion of the long-awaited Arundel bypass, with a profound impact on downland villages, which will continue to suffer a large amount of displaced traffic that cannot bypass Arundel on a proper coastal highway. The point is that local residents had the opportunity to make representations to the inquiry, based on their understanding of the law at the time, but that is now being changed, after the fact, with little debate in this place. That is wrong.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is right: the problem is that cultural heritage is not defined in the Bill. The concept is vague and we do not know what it means. Although his amendment would not remove wildlife from the new criteria that Natural England will have to take into account, it would nevertheless introduce a new confusion. Traditionally, wildlife has been dealt with by different instrumentsthrough sites of special scientific interestand not according to national park designations. Inclusion of the proposed criteria would further muddy the water.
	There are good reasons, to which the Minister will not be able to respond, why a South Downs national park is not the appropriate status for the area. It was already well managed by a joint conservation board and there have been three attempts to designate it as a national park. All failed due to the special nature of the downs, which are different from some other national parks. There is only limited open access; slightly less than 3 per cent. of the downs is open, compared with between 30 and 60 per cent. in other national parks. I fear that an attempt is being made to allow a designation of national park status that would not have been permitted under previous legislation, because the downs have always been regarded as unsuitable for that.
	I yield to no one in my desire to ensure that the south downs landscape is protected. It is important and superb, described by Arthur Mee in his famous The King's England series of inter-war county books as
	the natural glory of our island.
	Everybody would agree with that. The problem is the basis for the protection of the downs, and there are long-standing arguments about the democratic deficit that will be caused by designating it as a national park. For instance, it will involve a large number of planning decisionsfar more than in any other national park. Despite my commitment to the downs landscape, it is not appropriate to designate the area as a national park.
	Local opinion is divided, but people are entitled to certainty. If they make representations to an inquiry they should know what the law is, and the House should not attempt to change the law retrospectively after the inquiry has been completed. That is important. If the amendment is accepted, the Minister should do the right thing and reopen the inquiry, especially if the area's status is changed as proposed. If there are new criteria, local authorities and local people should be able to make representations based on them. The Minister should then make his decision. It is wrong to make such changes so late, on the back of this Bill, simply because the Government disagree with the result of a court case that will sit uncomfortably with the decision that they want to make about national park status.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is supposed to be speaking to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17.

Jim Knight: Thank you for that helpful guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I oppose amendment (a). The effect of amendments (a) and (b)if I make take them together, Madam Deputy Speakerwould be to exclude cultural heritage and promoting
	opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public
	from the considerations that can inform the designation criteria for national parks.
	To turn first to amendment (a), I hope to persuade the House that cultural heritage has been at the core of our concept of national parks in England since the 1940s. It was recognised by the founding fathers of the national parks movement that England and Wales have nothing that approaches the wilderness areas that were being designated in the United States at the time. In England and Wales, it was always recognised that the most exceptional landscapes demonstrate a harmony between man and nature. That encompasses cultural heritage, which, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), includes the built heritage produced by working the land.
	For example, hon. Members would agree that the Yorkshire Dales national park is outstanding. I would invite members to pause and reflect for a moment, as I speak, and imagine the quintessential Yorkshire dales landscape. I am sure that their thoughts would include a pattern of stone walls, field barns and farm housesall part of the cultural heritage of the Yorkshire dales, which we should include as part of our purpose in designating national parks.

John Mann: Does the Minister agree that the designation of the Yorkshire Dales national park also ought to include a good youth hostel? Will he consider giving some assistance to the youth hostels in the Yorkshire dales that are about to close?

Jim Knight: As ever, my hon. Friend is ingenious in finding ways to make representations on important causes, and the future of youth hostels is certainly one of them. I will bear his comments in mind.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister was unable to help the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), but he recently visited my constituency and Backdale quarry, and he was incredibly helpful in assisting the Peak district by issuing a stop notice. So I was very disappointed yesterday to receive a press statement that said:
	A public inquiry into quarrying at Backdale on Longstone Edgedue to resume next weekhas been cancelled after
	the Deputy Prime Minister
	declared the Peak District National Park Authority's enforcement action to be null and void.
	How can anyone take any reassurance from the Government's word on the national parks, when a junior Minister gives the go-ahead and approval for an action that is then cancelled and overridden by the Deputy Prime Minister? If the Minister cannot give me an answer today, will he ensure that he makes a statement before the House rises tomorrow?

Jim Knight: I will certainly look into the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes and find a suitable opportunity to respond fully; I am certainly unable to do so now.
	These Lords amendments are intended to clarify the interpretation of the statutory criteria for the designation of national parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, in line with how they have been generally understood and applied for the past 56 years. As we have heard, they are being introduced in response to a judgment on a High Court challenge to the New Forest national park designation order of 2005. The amendments return the situation to one in which we have what were generally understood, prior to the judgment, to be the relevant criteria, but with greater clarity.

Peter Bone: rose

Jim Knight: Let me just make a little more progress, and then I will give way.
	The Court found that the interpretation of the designation criteria should not be informed by national park purposes and appeared to favour a more restrictive interpretation of what could be considered to be natural in the context of natural beauty. During the past 56 years, the criteria for designation have been understood and read in the light of the purposes of national parks. In 1991 a report by the national parks review panel, Fit for the Future, reviewed the criteria and the purposes and recommended that there should be more explicit references to the wildlife and cultural heritage of the parks in the first purpose.
	The Government accepted that recommendation, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out, and used the Environment Act 1995 to amend the preservation and conservation purpose in section 5(1) of the 1949 Act. No changes were made to the designation criteria because it was thought to be generally understood at the time that the criteria were informed by the purposes. However, that assumed link was broken by the Meyrick judgment handed down last November. Therefore, the Government believe that we should now take explicit steps to make sure, in statute, that the 1995 Act changes do indeed apply to the designation criteria as well as to the purposes.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister deal with the point about the appeal that has been lodged? Why do we need to have legislation now, before the appeal has been dealt with?

Jim Knight: I was going to deal with that question when I responded to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). There are a number of reasons why we need to act now. A degree of uncertainty would otherwise be created in respect of other issues relating to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am not referring specifically to the south downs. The Countryside Agency is considering other issues in relation to extensions to some national parks, for example. We need to be able to offer certainty for that work to be continued. The opportunity to revise the 1949 Act in the future would be very uncertain. It could be many years before Parliament has another opportunity to restore what we believe is the status quo. That is why we would like to act now. If the Bill achieves Royal Assent, as I hope it will in the next day or so, I will have to consider what our position should be on the appeal, in the light of having made those changes.
	The main amendment, Lords amendment No. 17, adapts the criteria by incorporating the terminology of the purposes to make it clear that national park purposes are behind the criteria. As I have explained, we believe that that approach is what was intended by the original legislation. I have already talked about amendment (a). I think from what has been said that amendment (b) is an objection to the forward-looking nature of promoting
	opportunities for . . . understanding and enjoyment.
	By that I mean that in deciding whether a piece of land should be designated, one can consider whether, through the actions of the national park authority, or someone else, its values for understanding and enjoyment could be increased. I must point out that that was fully explored in the New Forest inquiry and the Meyrick judgment.
	The second criterion for designation in the 1949 Act, which amendment (b) does not alter, refers to opportunities for open air recreation. It is inherent in the word opportunities that an appropriate degree of looking to the future was intended; that point was even accepted by both the claimants and the judge in the Meyrick judgment. In response to the point about potential damage to the very environment and landscape that we are seeking to protect through national park status, the Sandford principle applies to national park authorities, so in the last resort their decisions would have to come down in favour of the environment. I could go on, but I suspect that some of my hon. Friends would not find that to their taste.

James Paice: Lords amendment No. 33 reaches the heart of the Meyrick judgment on what natural beauty is by defining it in a way that Iand the whole House, I am suream more than happy with. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that is not sufficient, and why Lords amendment No. 17 is necessary on top of it.

Jim Knight: Lords amendment No. 17 specifically and only deals with national parks. Lords amendment No. 33 addresses the degree of naturalness that is needed to meet the natural beauty criteria for areas of outstanding natural beauty and thus clarifies matters for all definitions of natural beauty in statute. It is important to make that distinction. Lords amendment No. 17 deals with purpose, and we have a balance between purpose and criteria.
	Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 37 provide for the commencement of the provisions two months after the Act has passed. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

James Paice: May I first pick up a point

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Technically, the hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House.

James Paice: My sincere apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the HouseI was told to say that, but I usually forget what I am told.
	May I first pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) when he suggested that I made a Freudian slip by using the word wild? I did not. My use of the word was intentional, not Freudian, and the word was taken directly from the very Hobhouse report that set the criteria for the 1949 Act, which referred to wild areas and wild moorland. I did not use the word wilderness, as he suggested.
	The principal issue is obviously a matter of interpretation. There is a question of whether Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 33 take the criteria further than simply reverting back to those in the 1949 Act, as subsequently amendedin other words, before the Meyrick judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) rightly referred to the south downs, and it is widely believed that the purpose of the Government amendments is to reopen the south downs issue. That is a matter for my hon. Friend and others who represent the area to debate another time, but as my hon. Friends have said, it is worrying that the Government are acting in a bit of a rush.
	I do not know whether the Minister can shed any light on when the appeal will be heard, but it would be perfectly sensible to wait for its outcome. I am worried to hear the Minister say that if the Lords amendments are passed and the Bill gets Royal Assent in the next few days, he will have to think again about the appeal. He impliesI am putting words in his mouth, but I think that most people understood thisthat the appeal may then be dropped. That would be a serious judgment to make. The matter should go to appeal because I do not think that the conclusions of Lord Justice Keene in the Meyrick case should be allowed to stand, regardless of what we might do to the Bill tonight, for the reasons that we have described.
	The Government are going a little further than they need to. I want the criteria for national park designation to be as they were prior to the Meyrick judgment. I am worried that the Lords amendments, especially Lords amendment No. 17, could open the criteria wider than that and give scope for applications for the designation of areas that most of us would not describe as having the special qualities that a national park should have. For those reasons, I will press amendment (a) to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 380.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to [One with Special Entry].

Clause 62
	  
	Ending of certain existing unrecorded public rights of way

Lords amendment: No. 20.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords   amendments Nos. 21 to 26, Lords amendment No. 27 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Jim Knight: Amendment No. 20 removes

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are breaking out in the House. Hon. Members should listen to the Minister.

Jim Knight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Amendment No. 20 removes clause 62(1)(b), the aim of which is to ensure that public motor vehicular rights are only extinguished over routes that, immediately before commencement, are used less by motor vehicles than by other users, which relates to the burden of proof on those who want to prove their vehicular rights.
	Amendment No. 21 replaces clause 62(1)(b) with a similar provision under clause 62(2), which will exempt from extinguishment any route where it can be shown that, for five years before commencement, the public use had been mainly by motor vehicles. That will ensure that, in such cases, the burden of proof is placed on those using a motor vehicle to show that, because the route had been used mainly by motor vehicles for a significant period, the rights have not been extinguished. The effect of the two amendments is to reverse where the burden of proof will lie.
	Amendment No. 22 clarifies that those routes recorded on the list of streets and not recorded on the definitive map and statement are exempted from extinguishment only where they are recorded on the list of streets immediately before commencement.

David Drew: Will the Minister clarify the issue of easements, particularly where it involves a public body such as the National Trust, which could be part of the problem? The problem is that when the National Trust attempts to clarify the ownership of common land, it causes individuals who require access over that common land considerable problems, which is the case in my area at least.

Jim Knight: Some of the amendments that we are making will enable people who need to access their property to continue to do so. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) raised that anomaly on Report. I shall discuss that issue again later, but if I do not resolve my hon. Friend's point, perhaps he will write to me or even raise the matter on the Second Reading of the Commons Bill, which will take place shortly after the Easter recess.
	Amendment No. 23 introduces arrangements to deal with existing, outstanding claims for rights of way that carry rights for mechanically propelled vehiclesbyways open to all traffic or BOATs. It provides that what is now clause 67 does not apply to any claims for BOATs made before the Government made clear, on 20 January 2005, their intention to legislate following public consultation. The Welsh Assembly Government have chosen to make that date 19 May 2005, the date on which the Bill was published.

Paddy Tipping: May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all the listening that he has done on this point during consideration of the Bill? Tremendous movement has been achieved and he has come to a good and sensible decision in choosing the date of 20 January 2005. I thank him and his officials for all the work that they have done.

Jim Knight: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, especially those relating to my officials who have done an excellent job in dealing with what is a complicated issue and with much correspondence from many hon. Members and others.
	The effect is that BOAT claims made before those two dates will be processed under the terms of the existing legislation, and therefore any rights for mechanically propelled vehicles that they seek to establish will not be extinguished, provided the claim proves successful. However, any BOAT claims made after those dates will be dealt with under the terms of the new legislation, subject to two limited exemptions. The first is when local   authorities have already reached the stage of determining the claim and the other is when they are made by property owners, as raised on Report by the right hon. Member for Bracknell.

Peter Atkinson: If a claim was made for a BOAT before 20 January 2005 and it fails, can the Minister confirm that any future claims for the same right of way will be caught by the cut-off?

Jim Knight: That is certainly my understanding. If the situation is any different, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and copy the letter to Opposition Front Benchers and place a copy in the Library.
	The transitional arrangements have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that only those definitive map modification order applications for BOATs made before 20 January 2005, or 19 May 2005 in Wales, that are made correctly and in accordance with the statutory requirements, will be preserved by the transitional arrangements in clause 62(3).
	Amendment No. 23 also amends the provisions that provide for private rights of access for property owners. That is necessary to ensure that there are no human rights issues created by commencement of the rights of way provisions shortly after Royal Assent without a period of statutory notice. Amendment No. 24 is a procedural amendment that refers to certain transitional provisions set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The provisions provide that, where a local authority has made a definitive map modification order under section 53 or 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 reclassifying a road used as a public path, or RUPP, as a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic, that order must be processed to its conclusion. However, the amendment will ensure that those transitional arrangements are subject to part 6 of this Bill in the normal way, so that unless they fulfil the criteria for any of the exemptions set out in the Bill's transitional arrangements, any vehicular rights in such claims will be extinguished.
	Amendment No. 25 addresses cyclists' concerns about whether a qualifying period of past, or future, cycle use may give rise to a restricted byway. The view of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is that a normal pedal-powered cycle is a non-mechanically propelled vehicle and therefore may give rise to restricted byway rights. This amendment introduces a clause that will make that clear on the face of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 26 clarifies that a definitive map modification order or DMMO application is, of itself, capable of bringing a route into question for the purposes of section 31 of the 1980 Act.
	Amendment No. 27 is in two parts. The first amends an existing provision, which provides that a restricted byway may be created through an application for a definitive map modification order. This amendment clarifies that a restricted byway can be created on the basis of both user and historic evidence. The second part will ensure that anyone driving on a restricted byway, which was a road used as a public path prior to reclassification, to access their property would not be committing a criminal offence under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	Amendments (a) and (b), tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), would amend Lords amendment No. 27. They concern subsection (7) of what is now clause 70. This subsection closes a possible loophole, which may have enabled those driving illegally over former RUPPs, to visit land that is designated for public access, to claim immunity from prosecution under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Subsection (7) specifically excludes such people from the exemption from prosecution, so that it is only available to those accessing their own property over former RUPPs, and their lawful visitors. The amendments seek to further close the possible loophole, by extending the categories of land specified in subsection (7) to include
	any land which is treated as being accessible to the public
	so that it would include any rights of way and town or village greens.
	We considered similar amendments very carefully when they were tabled in the other place. We have concluded that the exemption from prosecution works properly without the amendments. We are satisfied that the Government amendment that has been incorporated into clause 70 closed any potential loophole and that no further amendments to the clause are necessary. Amendments (a) and (b) as drafted cannot be accepted because they would introduce uncertainties into the definition of visitor. For example, if they were accepted, they would not mention section 15(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. We recognise that there is some concern that people using a right of way could be regarded as a visitor to the land. However, we do not share that concern. We have considered this issue very carefully and have concluded that those using a right of way could not be regarded as a visitor to one of the parts of land which the right of way may cross. The right of way may cross several fields in the ownership of several different landowners. The user of the right of way is not visiting those fields, he is using the right of way. I appreciate that this is a complex area of the law. We intend to issue guidance to the police, local authorities and others about the rights of way provisions in this Bill. That will include guidance to assist with the understanding and enforcement of this new legislation on rights of way. I hope that in light of that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments and that the House will accept the Lords amendments.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and we mostly welcome this group of amendments. The Minister, and other hon. Members who have taken an interest in this part of the Bill, will know that it has probably caused the most angst, especially the issue of the date of commencement. I am the first to admit to an element of confusion earlier in the proceedings. Having read and reread the Committee and Report proceedings, my confusion appears to have been shared by everybody else, including the Minister. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) would probably agree. We were all saying the same thing based on what appears to have been a misunderstanding of the import of the Bill and the impact that it would have on what we believed to be some 2,000 outstanding applications for the creation of BOATs.
	Subsequently, I tabled a written question and I am grateful to the Minister for taking a great deal of care in answering it. He has surveyed all the highways authorities to find out how many applications were outstanding on three datesthe date on which the Government published their consultation in December 2003, the date on which they announced the conclusions of their consultation in January 2005 and the date on which the Bill was presented in May 2005. That elicited the fact that the number of applications outstanding was not 2,000, as we had been led to believe, but fractionally fewer than 1,000, of which almost exactly half predated the original consultation. Some 288 were lodged in the consultation period between December 2003 and January 2005, and another 200 or so were lodged between January and May. That demonstrates an increasing rate of applications, but the situation was not as bad as we thought it would be.
	The concern shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House was that the Bill would allow a long period in which those 2,000 applications could proceed. If that happened, the intention of closing off the loophole of previous use of byways by vehicles in BOAT applications would have been defeated. I am glad to say, for reasons that I will come to in a moment, that that possibility has been significantly diminished.

John Mann: Do the hon. Gentleman's figures relate to applications or to the number of routes? For example, in my area one application might cover six or 12 different routes. For the various people affected, a route is a route, whether it is dealt with as a separate application or as part of a group put in as one application. May we have a clarification of his clarification so that we are clear about the scale of the problem?

James Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right and I am happy to agree with him. We can both blame the Minister, because his figures were not sufficiently explanatory. We do not know how many of those applications were multiple, but it is probable that more than 997 routes were requested.

John Mann: I can only give detailed illustrations from my own constituency, where the scale of the problem is related to the number of routes rather than the number of applications. For example, residents, farmers, dog-walkers, horse riders and so on might be affected by any one component of a circuit rather than by the entire circuit, which is an additional problem.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right. It may well be that the number of applications for individual routes is nearer to 2,000we simply do not know. I said in jest that it is all the Minister's fault, but I suppose that it is partly mine. I did not ask him the right question, so he did not ask the Highways Authority the right question. I am happy to share the responsibility, but I will not go further than that.
	The other interesting piece of information that came out of the Minister's surveythis is directly relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)is that there are tremendous variations around the country. The problem is concentrated on certain counties, including the Minister's own county, where there is a particular issue with a large number of applications. Several highway authorities reported few or no applications, so the situation is very patchy. When we debated this before, I was not awarethe hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) may have beenthat trail riders were offering a byway bonus for applications. The Trail Riders Fellowship said:
	For every Byway claimed by YOU the TRF will give the applicant 10.00
	If that application is successful then the TRF will give the applicant 250.
	That partly explains the surge in numbers.
	The question is what was done about the large number of applications. The Government's original intention, clearly based on the expectation that they would all have to be resolved, was that commencement would be in a year or so. I remember that the Minister was concerned to give time for all that to take place. We persuaded him, following advice that we received, that it could be brought back to the date on which the legislation was enacted. The debate in the other House has concerned making the date even earlier.
	I was never persuaded by the arguments that we should seek to eliminate all the outstanding applications. I took the view that those made prior to the Government's consultation in December 2003 were made in good faith and that they should be allowed to proceed under the rules that then pertained. I felt that December 2003 was the right date to go for, and that was the subject of amendments in the other place. I am happy to endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Sherwood about the Minister's willingness to discuss the issue. It became clear in those discussions that the Government were advised that they could not accept such an early date. I am sorry that they could not do that, and we might continue to wish to dispute it, but nevertheless I face the reality. What we have achieved through the mutual pressure from both sides of the House is the bringing back of the date from a year or so hence to January 2005.
	That makes a great deal of difference to the number of applications that will be dealt with under the existing rules. All bar 700 or so applicationsthose going up to Januarywill be dealt with under the old rules. The rest will be dealt with under the new criteria, which means that use of a byway by a vehicle, whether it is a Roman chariot or anything else from some distant point in history, would not be a basis for a claim for a byway open to all traffic.

Peter Atkinson: I want to express my thanks to the Minister for listening to the representations from my constituents, who are badly affected by this.
	On the legacy of the 300 or 400 outstanding claims that are not caught by the new rules, does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that the Government give advice to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service? We have discovered that if these claims are undetermined, there is virtually no chance of the CPS agreeing to prosecute those arrested for trespassing on these byways.

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the Minister said that he is going to issue guidance. That is terribly important. As we have all found in dealing with this legislation, it is a minefieldsome of us might wish that some of these tracks were a minefield, because it might stop their being usedand it causes immense difficulty and confusion among users, as well as prosecutors. I look forward to seeing the guidance to local authorities and to the police.
	I would add to that an exhortation to highway authorities, notwithstanding other pressures, to act quickly to resolve the outstanding applications. The sooner they are resolved and the map is definitive, the better for everybody.

David Drew: In Gloucestershire, we have not had this problem because there is a degree of amicable arrangement between the different parties. It is therefore somewhat strange to find out what is happening in other parts of the country. The biggest source of complaint is that there is no resolution because those tasked with trying to come up with one delay it because they say that they do not have enough resources. That is not acceptable, is it?

James Paice: Far be it from me perennially to refer to the fact that local authorities are deprived of resources by the present Government, but that seems to be what the hon. Gentleman is saying. So be itI am happy to accept his point. Yes, of course proceeding more quickly will take up more local authority resources, but in the long term it is in everybody's interests.
	I wish finally to refer to the amendments that stand in my name. They refer to the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). The Minister has listened and acted, and we are grateful for that. As he said, there is some concern that the term, visitor to the land, creates a loophole, and it was put to us that that could be closed by these amendments. I heard the Minister explain why he feels that they are inappropriate. I think that he could probably add to that the fact that he is anxious that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. We all agree, but that does not negate the need to get it right. He asked me to withdraw them, but I cannot withdraw what I have not moved. Nevertheless, I was interested in what he said. He clearly put on the record, for everybody to see, the Government's belief that the loophole does not exist and that the phrase that they have employed does not give people a means of using a byway for other purposes. Concerns were expressed that it would be used as a means of accessing another byway, on the basis that all byways connect one highway to another highway. If the Under-Secretary is convinced that the amendment would be unnecessary, I am prepared to take his word for it, especially as he is prepared to make relevant provision in the Bill.

Paddy Tipping: The Under-Secretary has also promised to issue guidance. It is clear that we need to have a firm view about the point.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need clear guidance. I shall not pursue my amendment but we have raised the matter and the Under-Secretary has put his position on it on record.
	We welcome the group of amendments, which has taken us a long way from where we started. It means that we can look forward to the protection of many of our byways that were under threat of being torn up by motorised vehicles. That will be widely accepted, perhaps with the exception of those who wish to use them. Some of them are reasonable and law-abiding and do not want to chew up the bywayswe should not tar everybody with the same brush. However, we should be aware that some people abuse byways. With proper guidance, the Government can ensure that the law is enforced and that those who continue to abuse our byways can be properly prosecuted.
	I welcome the amendments and thank the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has handled the matter.

Natascha Engel: I am especially pleased to follow the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) because I would like to pursue some of the issues that he raised.
	Rights of way affect many of my constituents. North-East Derbyshire sits at the foot of the Peak district and boasts some of the most beautiful rural villages in the country, for example Ashover. People have moved from far and wide to live in a peaceful rural idyll. Tourists travel hundreds of miles to visit, but their quality of life is being ruined and their nerves are shattered.
	As the Under-Secretary knows, the proposed legislation led to a flood of applications for modification orders to the definitive map to upgrade bridleways to byways to allow the sort of motorised vehicles that we have discussed todaytrial bikes, quad bikes and four-wheel-drive vehicleson to the bridleways. Many of those paths existed in the same state for centuries until motorised vehicles started to use them relatively recently.
	Visitors to the countryside who want to enjoy peaceful surroundings, wild flowers and birds or get some safe outdoor exercise in a beautiful historic environment have all that ruined by noisy trial bikes. They have caused great damage to land and paths, making them unuseable for those, such as walkers and horse riders, who want to use them legitimately. Horse riders can no longer use the paths, and it cannot be right that legitimate users are effectively prevented from using them so that trial bikers can ride around at high speed, not even looking at scenery or seeing what they drive over and often destroy.
	What does the Under-Secretary propose to do about applications for modification orders that have already been made but have not been determined? Is there a timetable for determining them?

Christopher Huhne: I am mindful of the hour and I shall therefore be brief. We were minded to support the Conservative amendments and I am therefore delighted with the Under-Secretary's assurances, especially about guidance. We are pleased that a sensible compromise was reached. That means that green lanes can be protected and the integrity of the countryside maintained. It was essential, in a Bill aimed at safeguarding the natural environment, to reach such an outcome to allow local authorities to deal with the backlog of claims and to prosecute the minority, who wilfully flout the laws and ride or drive where they should not, while allowing those who have established rights to continue to exercise them. We are therefore happy to support the compromise.

Andrew MacKay: I thank the Under-Secretary sincerely for the Lords amendments, which were similar to those that I withdrew on Report but are doubtless better drafted. They will make a huge difference to many of my constituents who would have been unable to sell their properties without them. In one or two cases, significant distress has been caused. I hope that Royal Assent happens quickly because, in at least one case, people are desperately waiting to proceed. Again, I place on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary and his officials, who were so helpful when I went to see him at the Department.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 28 agreed to.

Clause 74
	  
	Reserved functions

Lords amendment: No. 29.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 31, and 42 to 55.

Jim Knight: Amendment No. 29 responds to a small but important point picked up by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in its helpful report. It noticed that, in clause 74, which deals with reserved functions, we had excluded from delegation various legislative or quasi-legislative functions but had not mentioned codes of practice. We agree that that should be done because codes of practice are often indistinguishable from guidance. We are happy, therefore, to make that small change.
	Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 have the sole purpose of improving the clarity of the wording of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 42 adds to the list of designated bodies in schedule 7 the joint committees of local authorities that discharge functions in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty.
	Amendments Nos. 43 to 55 relate to schedules 9 and 10. Those schedules list detailed provisions for part 8, chapter 2, which relates to agricultural levy bodies. The purpose is to put in place an explicit means of implementing the recommendations of the November 2005 Radcliffe report, which reviewed the position of the main agricultural and horticultural levy bodies. A public consultation on the report's findings was completed on 3 February and we expect to announce our decisions on the future levy board structure around Easter. The amendments set up a structure that would allow us to proceed after that consultation.
	I ask hon. Members to accept the Lords amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of any Lords Amendments and Messages that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

Consumer Credit Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme Motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Consumer Credit Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th June 2005 (Consumer Credit Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.[Tony Cunningham.]
	The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Consumer Credit Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 7
	  
	Further provision relating to statements

Lords amendment: No. 1

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5.

Gerry Sutcliffe: On Lords amendment No. 1, we believed that it was necessary to modify the wording of the proposed new subsection (2) in clause 7(3), to ensure no ambiguity in its meaning. It is a technical amendment that simply makes the wording clear and removes any potential for confusion by changing the word his to the debtor's. I hope that hon. Members will support it.
	On Lords amendment No. 2, the Government amended clause 20 in another place to remove subsection (4). Again, the amendment is technical. Clause 20(4), as it was, was intended to prevent the court from setting aside judgments previously made to give effect to the rule that a statutory jurisdiction to reopen a transaction does not enable the court to reopen one that has been subject to a previous judgment made by the court. It replicated a provision in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
	The Government reconsidered the impact of that provision in the light of current court rules operating in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and concluded that subsection (4) would in practice serve as an impediment to the Government's policy intentionto enable consumers to access effective redress from the court under those provisionsand that the court rules should be allowed to apply to those provisions in the normal way. If we left the provision as it stood, before the Lords amendment, it would serve to lessen the benefits of the Government's policy on unfair relationships. Therefore, the provision is best left out of the Bill.
	Lords amendment No. 3 was tabled to clause 29, prior to Third Reading in the other place. Members of this House and noble Lords expressed their concerns about irresponsible lending practices during debates on this Bill. The Minister in the other place, the noble Lord Sainsbury of Turville, and I considered carefully the contributions of hon. Members and noble Lords on this issue. We thought hard about how the Government should respond. The Government believed that the wording of clause 29, as previously drafted, would allow the Office of Fair Trading to take account of irresponsible lending practices. However, in response to the concerns expressed on both sides of both Houses, we concluded that there was merit in making explicit in the Bill the ability of the OFT to do that.
	Given the interest expressed by hon. Members in the issue of irresponsible lending practices, I should explain the amendment further. The Government believe that the most appropriate means of addressing irresponsible lending practices is in the context of the OFT's powers to monitor and enforce the fitness of licence holders. With this amendment, the OFT, which is best placed to monitor changing practices in a dynamic market, will be able to provide guidance to licence holders on lending practices which, on the basis of the OFT's knowledge and experience of the market

Ian Liddell-Grainger: As the Minister is well aware, one of the big problems, is the policing of all these provisions. Whatever this place decides, and whatever legislation we send out to Britain, we still cannot control it. Does he agree that we must somehow tighten the Bill even further?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am satisfied that the amendments, which were discussed in the Lords at great length, along with the debate that we had in the Commons on the Bill, have produced a tightened position. There was considerable discussion about irresponsible lending and we believe that the amendment, with the role of the OFT, is the appropriate way forward.

Mark Prisk: Further to the excellent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), the key point is not the quality of the legislation but the effectiveness of its implementation. Does the Minister understand that, because I suspect hon. Members are looking for an assurance on implementation?

Gerry Sutcliffe: As I move on, I hope that I will be allowed the opportunity to talk about the implementation plan, which may allay some of the fears that hon. Gentlemen have. Throughout consideration of the Bill, we have said that we are keen to ensure transparency in terms of policy objectives. We need to work with the organisations involved, whether the industry, consumer groups or the OFT, to make sure that the implementation is what we intend.

Michael Fallon: The phrase irresponsible lending is included but not defined in the Bill. Is it to be left to the OFT to define the powers that it will exercise? Can the Minister assure us about how the definition will be drawn up?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair question and if he lets me progress in my speech, I hope that I can answer that.
	The OFT would perform this role through its fitness guidance. That approach will allow the OFT to provide business with an indication of what types of conduct are considered irresponsible lending practices. Businesses would therefore have some guidance on what they ought to avoid, while not being discouraged from seeking out new ways of addressing customer demand. That will be backed by a sanction available to the OFT of reviewing a lender's fitness to hold a licence if the lender engages in such practices.

Peter Bone: The clause refers to deceitful practices. Would a practical example be the sending out of statements by credit card companies during public holidays so that the recipient has no chance of paying the bill before the specified date and therefore incurs a penalty charge?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I have made great strides in ensuring that I do not determine the qualifications from the Dispatch Box. I feel that it is better to leave the OFT to decide what constitutes irresponsible practices. The hon. Gentleman knows that the three spokespeople on the issue have been dealing with APACSthe Association for Payment Clearing Servicesand studying the banking code to establish the position in regard to consumer credit card cheques. We will keep the House informed about the progress of those deliberations.

Edward Davey: The Minister's answer on how irresponsible practices would be defined seems to contradict what he said on 14 July last year. Then, he said, The amendmenta different amendment
	seems to assume that the test is somehow dependent on the OFT's guidance. It is not. The OFT's guidance is simply that: guidance.[Official Report, 14 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1021.]
	He went on to say that, ultimately, the courts would decide the definition of such tests and whether it was a question of irresponsible lending or of unfairness. Can he confirm that the definition will be decided by the courts, not the OFT, and that the OFT's guidance will ultimately have no legally binding effect on rulings?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman is right in the context of why I did not go into the definition of unfair lending and the unfairness test. As for the issue of guidance and support from the OFT, the response to points raised in both Houses was that it was thought best to give business some certainty about some of the practices that could be considered irresponsible lending practices, on the basis of the OFT's ability to develop a process in the light of its experiences and its responsibility for determining whether people are fit to hold licences.
	I hope that Members in all parts of the House accept that the Government have listened and that we will discuss the issues with all the bodies that have helped to make this the Bill that it isa Bill that is well respected and that has been subject to much consultation. I know that, given good will from Members, we shall achieve what we want to achieve.

James Brokenshire: I welcome the introduction of the concept of irresponsible lending, which was debated in detail in Committee, but I have a question for the Minister. This provision relates to the granting of new licences on the basis of the fit and proper purpose test. Will he tell us more about ongoing monitoring? A new applicant may not have a track record, in which case it will be necessary to see what happens after a licence has been granted.

Gerry Sutcliffe: That will depend on how we implement the provisions following discussions with the industry. We have outlined the OFT's role on the basis of its experience. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we discussed it in Committee, the OFT already grants licences.

Philip Hollobone: rose

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am happy to give way, but I want to make some progress, because most of the amendments are technical. We have spent some time on this amendment because of the introduction of the new concept of irresponsible lending.

Philip Hollobone: It is right for us to spend some time on that important issue, but I commend to the Minister the work of the citizens advice bureaux. Most of the complaints received by Kettering CAB concern the indebtedness of local people and it has built up a substantial body of evidence that would help him to define irresponsible lending.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I acknowledge the work done by citizens advice bureaux and other advice agencies. The hon. Gentleman will know of the Government's intention to allow the financial inclusion fund to give advice face to face and of our wish to find ways of helping people early to deal with the debts that they incur. He also knows of the regulations following our consumer White Paper, which offer help and support.
	I am grateful to the industry for its work in offering mechanisms of support for people who find themselves in debt. I believe that we are all trying to achieve the same thing: transparent legislation that makes clear the responsibilities for both lender and borrower. However, we also want to do what we can to support the agencies that offer help. The hon. Gentleman will know of the loan shark hunter pilot schemes in Birmingham and Glasgow that offer advice to people who find themselves in debt to, and exploited to the limit by, the most horrendous members of society.
	We have listened to what has been said to us about irresponsible lending. I hope and expect that we shall gain the support of the Opposition parties, given that, during the variety of debates in which we engaged, it was clear that they wanted us to take this step.
	Lords amendment No. 4 is technical and would alter new section 36F(3) in clause 50 to ensure that the clause does what was originally intended. Clause 50 deals with officers of enforcement agencies other than the OFT. New section 36F(2) makes the OFT responsible for the actions of those officers while they are fulfilling their duties under section 36C of the 1974 Act, which deals with access to premises, and section 36D, which deals with access to premises under warrant. However, section 36F(3) disapplies section 36F(2) in the case of criminal proceedings against an officer of the enforcement authority. It does not currently mention the OFT and we believe that, for the sake of clarity, it should be specifically mentioned. The amendment clarifies the position as originally intended.
	Lords amendment No. 5 addresses a key recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which reported on the Bill in October last year. The amendment makes an order under clause 68 subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament, as opposed to negative resolution in either House. An order made under clause 68 can make changes to any other Act or piece of subordinate legislation that is necessary as a consequence of the Consumer Credit Act.

Edward Davey: Can the Minister confirm that, if the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is passed, the powers that it gives Ministers would mean that the amendment was superseded?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The amendment restricts the powers to affirmative resolution, because the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee felt that they were too wide-ranging. We had a long debate in Committee about the need for affirmative or negative resolution in the case of various clauses, based on tradition and on what had applied in earlier legislation. However, we listened to what was said by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and were happy to accept its recommendations in this case.

Edward Davey: It is not that we disagree with the amendment. I think that the Government were right in  another place to listeneventuallyto the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. My point is that a Bill that is being dealt with in the other place, having been scrutinised in this placethe Legislative and Regulatory Reform Billgives Ministers powers to change regulations willy-nilly, without coming back to Parliament. If we pass the amendment, will we merely give ourselves a breathing space of a few months because in due course Ministers will be able to disregard it?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am sorry to have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's point. He is right: the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is going through its stages in both Houses. We do not expect the clause to be superseded by anything that appears in that Bill, but we shall have to see what happens during its passage.
	Lords amendment No. 5 is technical, as are many of the earlier amendments apart from the one that deals with irresponsible lending, which we have spent some time debating.
	I should like to say a little about implementation, because that has been raised with me. The Bill will be implemented as soon as is practical, with account taken of all stakeholder views. Some provisions may be implemented earlier than others; it will depend on lead times for preparation and interdependencies between clauses. The timetable for implementation will be refined after Royal Assent, in consultation with stakeholders. We have had a number of meetings with other Departments, the industry and consumer representatives, which will continue. We are also establishing two stakeholder working groups to inform the implementation process, one to look specifically at the implications of the Bill on IT system changes and one to examine the technical detail of the statutory instruments. We intend to publicise the final timetable towards the end of May. The Department will adhere to all relevant guidelines and best practice on implementation, such as the 12-week minimum for formal consultation periods.
	I hope that, in the light of those explanations, the House will accept the Lords amendments.

Mark Prisk: I begin by thanking the Minister for his opening remarks and for organising the recent joint meetings of the various political parties with the Association for Payment Clearing Services. In these meetings, we have been looking at the key issues arising out of the Bill and, indeed, at matters that lie at the heart of amendment No. 3, to which the Minister alluded.
	The Minister and I have debated on a number of occasions, but this, I believe, is the first time that we have debated a Bill across the Dispatch Box. Indeed, I must confess that I have not debated this Bill before. Although it was introduced twice last yearbefore the election and afterit was sent to the other place before I assumed my current role, so I am not as well versed in its detail as other Members, including a number of my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), who has made a valuable contribution to the debate.
	This is an important Bill and some of the amendments before us may improve its meaning and clarity. Sadly, it is not very difficult to make the Bill clearer. Indeed, the need for amendments Nos. 1 and 2 draws our attention to the considerable obfuscation that exists throughout the rest of the Bill. Here, I want to place on the record my genuine concern that, as with so much of this Government's legislation, the quality of the Bill's drafting leaves much to be desired. I hasten to add that that is the fault not of parliamentary counsel, but of those who instruct them. That is a particularly important point to bear in mind when we consider the central tenet of amendment No. 3: what the Minister and the Bill describe as the unfairness test. After all, it was the Minister himself who told this House last June on Second Reading that the Bill has to be judged on the principles of transparency, protection and fairness. If that is so for the Bill's substance, it should also apply to its language.
	That is why we need to consider these amendments with great care. Several of them, particularly amendments Nos. 1 and 2, make predominantly technical changes, so I hope that the Minister will be prepared to put on the record his explanation for tabling them. He has made a welcome initial stab but there were a number of omissions, which I hope to address later. A willingness and ability on his part to respond to my points will help us with the implementation to which he referred. After all, transparency can be achieved not only through better legislation, but through well-chosen words from a Minister during a debate. It is such transparency that I seek this evening.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would alter clauses 7 and 20 respectively. Although they are technical, I have some concerns about their effects, to which I will come in a moment. Amendment No. 3, which, as the Minister said, inserts new wording into clause 29, is directly concerned with what we have described as irresponsible lending. [Interruption.] Here, the Minister's response will be particularly vital, and I hope that he is listening closely to every single word.

Gerry Sutcliffe: As always.

Mark Prisk: Indeed, and I am sure that he will do so throughout this debate.

Peter Bone: What worries me is that no practical examples have been given of what the wording means, which is no good for the industry or the consumer. I hope that the Minister will give such practical examples.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and he is right: one key issue with all such legislation is ensuring that we think through its implementation. Sadly, that skill seems to be lacking on the Government Benches, but I have every confidence in the Minister and, hopefully, he will be able to shine in the darkness of his colleagues' abilities. However, we shall see. I am a generous soul and I am always happy to give the benefit of the doubt on these matters.

Michael Weir: What does the hon. Gentleman regard as irresponsible lending? I am slightly concerned that some Conservative Members are trying to include in the Bill a prescriptive list. That would be very dangerous, because it is the nature of irresponsible lending that it can mutate, depending on when such a lender is found out and another appears.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that if we become too prescriptive, the danger is that we will tie the hands of the authorities involved. But I hope that during this debate, we can clarify the parameters within which those authorities will operate; indeed, that is perhaps the essence of our consideration this evening.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not want to interrupt the flow of the hon. Gentleman's argumentI appreciate that it might take him some time to get to the detailbut I should point out that amendment No. 3 would establish a licensing responsibility on the part of the OFT in examining the concept of irresponsible lending. He and his colleagues are widening the debate to include the unfairness test, but the amendment is concerned with the OFT's powers in relation to the licensing function.

Mark Prisk: I would be very unwise were I to try to widen the tenor of this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would be the first person to bring me back in order. So although I understand the Minister's natural concern, I shall certainly do my best to ensure that we do not fall into that trap.
	I have received a significant number of representations on amendment No. 3 that merit what I am sure will be a proper response from the Minister. Amendment No. 4 would amend clause 50, which deals with
	Officers of enforcement authorities other than OFT,
	an issue to which I shall return in a moment. Amendment No. 5 seeks to ensure that the powers in clause 68 to modify certain legislation should be allowed only by means of the affirmative resolution procedure of the House, and not by the unsatisfactory negative procedure, a problem to which Members have referred before. So as I suspect Members can see, these amendments are of significance and will have important ramifications for those affectedlenders and borrowers, creditors and debtors alike.
	Amendment No. 1 would amend clause 7(3) by removing the word his in proposed new subsection (2) and inserting the phrase the debtor's. So once amended, it would state that
	the creditor need not give statements to any debtor who has signed and given to him a notice (a 'dispensing notice') authorising him not to comply in the debtor's case with section 77A or (as the case may be) 78(4).
	As Members will doubtless appreciate, although this is a technical matter it is also one of some substance. As I said earlier, transparency is indeed key to the whole Bill, and to that end, we welcome the use of the phrase the debtor's instead of the word his, in order to clarify earlier references to creditors and debtors. However, if Members consider the context of new subsection (2), they will immediately notice the confusing aspects of the remaining drafting. The beginning of new subsection (2) states:
	Notwithstanding subsection (l)(a), where credit is provided under an agreement to two or more debtors jointly, in performing his duties
	(a) in the case of fixed-sum credit, under section 77A, or
	(b) in the case of running-account credit, under section 78(4).
	That is followed by the part that I read out a moment ago, in which the phrase the debtor's is inserted for the word his.
	The Bill remains confusing and difficult, especially as what is proposed is to be inserted into the original 1974 Act. Does the Minister consider the language to be transparent?
	Clarification of the Bill at this late stage is welcome, but we have consistently said that the fundamental problem is that it is vague and lacking in detail. Those problems persist, to the detriment of consumers and lenders alike.
	Amendment No. 2 to clause 20 is small but equally significant. It would remove subsection (4), which at present states:
	An order under this section shall not alter the effect of any judgment.
	As I was not clear what that meant, I looked at the background. Clauses 19 to 22 introduce a new unfair relationship test, as the Minister mentioned earlier. The new test will expand the number of factors that the court must take account of when considering the fairness of agreements between creditors and debtors. It will enable the court to decide whether a relationship between a creditor and debtor was unfair to the debtor due to the terms of the agreement, or the way that the creditor operated the agreement, or
	any other thing done (or not done) by . . . the creditor
	before or after the agreement was made.
	Clause 20(4) was originally put in the Bill to prevent the courts from setting aside other judgments previously made, in line with the rule that a court cannot reopen a transaction previously subject to a judgment by the court. The comparison is not direct, but people will recognise that as resembling the double jeopardy principle. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will clarify matters if I stray too far in respect of judicial consideration in other types of court, so I shall not pursue the matter.
	However, the Government subsequently reconsidered the provision's impact, and the Minister said earlier that it was decided that clause 20(4) would be an obstacle to enabling customers gaining effective redress from creditors via the court.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman may be doing a disservice to the Opposition Front Bench in the other place. Did not the Conservative Lord De Mauley first propose the amendment in the Grand Committee?

Mark Prisk: I am not condemning the amendment. I want to ensure that it is implemented effectively. I have every confidence in Lord De Mauley, who is an excellent representative of my party in the other place.
	The Minister will know that a very similar amendment was tabled in Grand Committee, as has just been noted. We welcome the Government's intention to remove an obstacle to consumers gaining effective redress through the courts. The Minister likes candour and a cross-party approach, so it is fair to say that the amendment is insignificant, in the overall scheme of things, when compared with the much bigger difficulties that the new unfair relationship rules present.
	I shall not rehearse in detail all the points raised repeatedly in this House and the other place. However, the Minister will be fully aware of the concerns that have been expressed, and that various implementation issues remain unresolved. We support the general principle of a new unfairness test, but are concerned about the lack of clarity in respect of what that will constitute in practice. I want to use the debate to tease the details out in a positive way, so that they can be put on record.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that it was the Opposition who proposed a similar amendment in the Grand Committee. That was withdrawn, and the Government put forward the amendment under consideration now. However, I assure him that he can say nothing to tempt me to change my view of the unfair relationship test. I hope that that will prevent him from going on too long. The hon. Gentleman can be eloquent, but he will not change my mind.

Mark Prisk: The Minister is protective of my larynx, and I am grateful, but I want to ensure that the House as a whole is aware of the issues involved. My argument is not for his benefit alone, but is for consideration by all hon. Members. However, I appreciate what he says.

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend joins a long line of hon. Members who have tried to tease a definition of unfairness out of the Minister. Indeed, I made a speech in Standing Committee that cited extensive case law and judgments in a detailed definition of unfairness. The Minister said that the new definition in the Bill reflected the Government's desire to tackle all types of unfair relationships. I made the point that the lack of further guidance leaves dissatisfied debtors in a very difficult position.

Mark Prisk: I did not participate in the Committee debates, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) for clarifying the background.
	As I said, we are concerned about the lack of clarity with the unfairness test. Constituents are worried that, if the industry is not clear about the lending practices that are acceptable, it inevitably will be more cautious in its lending practices, to the detriment of the borrower. Without a thorough understanding of their chances of success in the courts, some consumers may be deterred from pursuing cases that, if unsuccessful, would only add to their financial difficulties, stress and problems. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will have had that difficulty brought to their attention by constituents who have experienced it.
	It is not a sensible approach for either lenders or consumers to have to wait for case law to develop before they can be clear about the law's parameters. Moreover, the vast majority of cases are likely to be of relatively low value, so will be litigated predominantly in the lower courts. They are likely to go largely unreported as a result.
	Even with the amendment under discussion, there remains the risk of inconsistency. When the Minister replies to the debate as a whole, I hope that he will tell us   what assurances he can give the industry and consumers that the new test will not prove unfair in implementation.
	What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that courts give consistent rulings? That goes beyond ensuring that previous judgments are not set aside, and touches on the more important question of what the unfairness test comprises. Most pertinently, where will the burden of proof fall?
	Concern has been expressed by a wide range of interest groupsincluding lenders such as Barclays bank and the Association for Payment Clearing Services, and consumer representatives such as the Consumer Credit Associationabout the reversal of what some perceive as the normal burden of proof and the introduction of the premise that all relationships might be deemed unfair unless proved otherwise.
	We are concerned that that might prompt many consumers to try their luck with a claim. Ironically, the consumers most likely to do that could well be those least able to afford to do so. That could be detrimental to them in the future.

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend echoes the point that I made in Committee, which was that the absence of a definition of unfair is a lose-lose situation. Not only would lack of clarity harm the debtor, but it could also harm the creditor, because ambulance-chasing lawyers will try their luck.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was about to say that sometimes great minds think alike, but I am aware of how that phrase concludes.

Stephen Pound: Fools seldom do.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, ComedyI am sorry, Ealing, North for reminding us.
	On Report, we moved an amendment to provide that the Office of Fair Trading issue periodic guidance on what constitutes an unfair relationship. If definitions are not included in the Bill, will the Minister undertake at least to reconsider the scope for issuing guidance to clarify the situation for consumers, lenders and the courts alike? The key to an effective consumer credit regime lies in shared responsibility. Lenders have a duty to make responsible lending decisions, and data sharing, which the Minister and I have discussed both in the House and in his Department, is critical. Consumers also have to take responsibility for their borrowing and spending decisions but, sadly, many people do not have the financial literacy to enable them to do so. The Government thus have a responsibility to get the legislative framework right so that both lenders and consumers know where they stand.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Prisk: I am just about to move on to amendment No. 3, but as there is a little time left, I will give way.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is so generous.
	Is not data sharing the key to greater transparency, as it would mean that irresponsible lending would be actionable and the provisions would actually work?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is right. Data sharing is crucial. His predecessor as Liberal Democrat spokesman had discussions about it with the Minister and me. The matter is proceeding, so perhaps cross-party consensus could be developed.
	Moving from that consensual tone, I turn to amendment No. 3, which would amend clause 29 by inserting an additional subsection at the end of line 6, page 24. I shall not read it out as I am sure that Members have studied it. The amendment makes explicit the power of the OFT to take account of irresponsible lending when monitoring and enforcing the fitness of licence holders. As originally drafted, the Bill required the OFT to have regard to the
	skills, knowledge and relevant experience
	of any person applying for a licence in relation to consumer credit, consumer hire or ancillary credit services. It also required the OFT to bear in mind whether an applicant had
	committed any offence involving fraud, dishonesty or violence,
	contravened any relevant law relating to consumer credit, engaged in discriminatory practices or business practices that the OFT judged deceitfula point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr.   Vaizey) referred earlieroppressive, unfair or improper.
	In Committee, several Members on both sides of the House supported amendments to include a requirement that creditors lend responsibly. The Government originally resisted those proposals. However, as the Minister told us, considerable concern has been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill about the fact that debt in itself is not the problem, but that irresponsible lending and, therefore, borrowing can be. Lending to someone who is already up to their neck in debt is neither sensible nor responsible. It is good neither for the customer nor, in the end, the lender. In previous debates, here and in the other place, the Government steadfastly refused our calls for a specific power on irresponsible lending in the Bill, on the grounds that it would be difficult to define irresponsible and that including such a specific duty would require guidance as to what did and did not constitute irresponsible lending.
	The Minister in the other place, Lord Sainsbury, stated:
	A positive duty to lend responsibly may, considered in isolation, appear attractive. However, by imposing such a positive duty, the consequence is that the guidance will need to provide lenders with sufficient information to comply with that positive duty. That would involve the compilation of a list of rules of what is and is not responsible lending.
	He concluded:
	We want to encourage responsible lending. But we do not believe that the way to do this would be to include an unhelpful duty in the legislation or in guidance. We are convinced that it will lead to the development of a multiplicity of procedural rules, which we want to avoid.[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2006; Vol. 677, c. 74243.]
	We welcome the Government's willingness to recognise that that would not be the case in their U-turn on the matter. Does the Minister now believe that guidance on what constitutes irresponsible lending will not after all reflect on the concerns to which the Minister in the House of Lords referred and which were described as an inflexible tick-box approach? What particular aspects persuaded the hon. Gentleman of the change? He made some brief allusions in his opening remarks but he did not give us the full explanation. It would be helpful for us to understand the reasoning behind the decision.
	As the Minister is aware, the Opposition expressed continuing concern in the other place that amendments may still not cover the irresponsible granting of credit; for example, where customers are offered further credit facilities for the purchase of furniture, kitchens or other big-ticket items, despite already being able to borrow thousands of pounds on credit cards. The Government's view is that the amendment will cover that issue as well as irresponsible lending. We hope that will prove to be the case.
	The Minister is no doubt aware of the latest concerns expressed by industry representatives about the lack of definition. Members from various parties touched on that earlier. Only yesterday, I received representations from APACSan organisation that will be at the heart of the Bill's implementationthat the lack of definition will give the OFT inappropriate power. Rosalind Sellers from APACS stated:
	This amendment gives the OFT powers to refuse credit licences based on an undefined concept of 'irresponsible lending'. We strongly support the principle of making what has been implicit throughout discussion of the Billi.e. the need to curb irresponsible as well as unfair lendingexplicit at this stage. However, we are concerned that, in practice, the lack of definition will enable the OFT to define its own powers and then enforce them without consultation.
	In previous debates, one of the Minister's arguments for excluding the provision was that it would be difficult to reach a definition. It would not be surprising if the Minister said that part of the problem is as much of our making as his, given that we pressed for inclusion of the provision. However, as he has conceded to our request, it is his duty as a Minister of the Crown to ensure that the Bill is workable. That, in essence, is my concern. So will he tell us his plans for issuing guidance to the OFT and creditors on the definition of irresponsible lending?

Peter Bone: Are not we being asked to pass into law something that is not transparent, on which guidance will be issued only afterwards and which gives a lot of power to the OFT? That is not good for consumers or the industry.

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend's trilogy of concern sadly reminds me of so many Bills that the Government generate. They are not transparent and they are not workable in practice. Unfortunately, that is a regular feature. My hon. Friend is right; the amendments take positive steps, but there are concerns that they do not go far enough. I am concerned about the workability of the legislation.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I can fully understand why the hon. Gentlemanhe was not with us in Committeeis going over some of the arguments that have been well rehearsed and, I hope, explained. Do I get the impression that he will not disagree with any of the Lords amendments? Will the Opposition vote against any of them?

Mark Prisk: I have always believed that, in a debate, one should listen to the argument first. I stick to that principle, and I hope that the Minister will understand why.
	Lords amendment No. 4 relates to clause 50. I am sure that hon. Members realise that the Government are seeking to leave out from the word against to the word in in page 42, line 21, and insert the words
	the officer, the enforcement authority of which he is an officer or the OFT.
	I suspect that hon. Members who, like myself, have not been familiar with the Bill for long would wonder what that meant. Lords amendment No. 4 is a clarifying amendment, designed to ensure that clause 50 will achieve what is intended. One would assume that the Government would have done that in the first place, but that is not always the case, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise.
	Clause 50 deals with officers of enforcement authorities other than the OFT. Proposed new section 36F(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will make the OFT responsible for the actions of those officers, while they are fulfilling their duties under proposed new sections 36C and 36D, as the Minister said at the beginning of the debate. However, proposed new section 36F(3) disapplies that provision in the case of criminal proceedings against an officer or the enforcement authoritythat is, the OFT will not be responsible in those instances. As originally drafted, proposed new section 36F(3) did not specifically refer to an instance where proceedings are brought against the OFT itself as a result of the actions of such an officer. Lords amendment No. 4 includes that situation for the purposes of clarification.
	Again, the principle that underlies the Bill is welcomeit will introduce some claritybut can the Minister give an assurance that, in his opinion, it contains no other instance of a similar lack of clarity about the respective roles of the OFT or any other agency? I look forward to hearing his reply, and I certainly want to ensure that it is on the record.
	In Committee, the Minister suggested that the other enforcing authorities likely to carry out such activities on behalf of the OFT were most likely to be local authority trading standards officers. He went on to give an assurance that that work could not, and would not, be subcontracted out to other organisations or, for that matter, to the private sector. Can he repeat that reassurance? It was only a suggestion, as far as I can see from the record. Can he advise us about what statutory restrictions are in place to prevent the contracting out of those duties to inappropriate organisations or authorities?

Edward Vaizey: The Minister in saying that there would be no subcontracting also said that no police checks would therefore be undertaken on any organisation carrying out such work. Therefore, my hon. Friend is making an extremely important and pertinent point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has probably heard enough recapitulations of what was said in Committee. Such information is already available in printed form to all hon. Members, and I am sure that it has been studied ahead of the debate.

Mark Prisk: I am sure that you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that we study these matters thoroughly, because they are of great concern.
	We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted Lords amendment No 5, which was tabled by my colleagues in another place. As the Minister will recall, that amendment addresses a key recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which specifically expressed the view that the powers in clause 68 should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. We welcome the Government's rather belated acceptance both of that Committee's advice and of our amendment.
	Clause 68 will allow the Secretary of State, by statutory instrument, to modify any Act or subordinate legislation as he thinks fit in consequence of any provision in the Bill. Those are sweeping powers, as hon. Members will realise. Can the Minister give us an indication of the kind of legislation that is likely to be amended as a result of that clause? Of course, as with most legislation that this Government generates, we would have liked less secondary legislation in the first place.
	A lack of clarity in the Bill will simply lead to confusion both for those who will implement it and those who will be subject to it. What assurances can the Minister give us that orders and guidance published under the Bill will be produced in a timely manner, giving lenders, enforcement agencies and others a proper opportunity to prepare for implementation?
	The debate has given us the opportunity to seek further clarification, which hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to pursue. It is fair to say that I have raised a number of important points about the Bill's implementation, and I look forward to the Minister response. However, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I want to make some final points. One of our main concerns has been the lack of detail in the Bill. That concern has been recorded throughout the discussions that have taken place in the House. The Lords amendments under consideration today are relevant to two of our particular concerns.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am a fool to myself, but I want to help the hon. Gentleman. He is arguing that lots more should be included in the Bill to provide certainty, but the other side of that argument relates to the implementation of the regulations that flow from the Bill and the industry's ability to deal with those issues. If all that is included in the Bill, it becomes too restrictiveit does not allow the opportunity to discuss the changes in systemsso he cannot have it both ways. That issue was raised throughout the debates in Committee.

Mark Prisk: There is much merit in what the Minister says, except for the fact that we are always concerned that too many Bills are essentially shells. We are asked to take it on trust that the elements that fill them out will be as described. Although the Minister is an honourable man, it is always our concern to ensure that we understand that issue, which is the essence of my concern in this case.
	As the Minister will know, widespread concern has been expressed throughout the industry about the timetable for the implementation of the Bill. Indeed, the Minister made that point at the end of his opening remarks. We recognise the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has recently published an indicative timetablenot a final onefor the secondary legislation, guidance and consultation and that the industry welcomes that clarification.
	Detail is essential not least to allow lenders to reconfigure IT systems, so that they can fully comply with the new legislation. For example, APACS has noted that, in its experience, the design, building and testing of IT systems can take 18 months from regulatory certainty to full implementation. Given the Government's record on botched IT projects, I hope that the Minister will have sympathy with the industry's concerns during the implementation programme and that he will be able to respond accordingly.
	Finally, good progress was made on the Bill in another place. It is fair to say that we welcome the careful consideration that the Lords have given to the Bill. I trust that we will indeed have a useful debate today, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's detailed responses to the questions that I have had the opportunity to touch on today.

Edward Davey: The House will be pleased to know that I will not take 39 minutes to make my remarks. I generally support the Lords amendments. My colleague the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was in charge of the Bill for the Liberal Democrats when it was considered on Second Reading and in Committee, generally supported the Government's proposals, although he made some useful points of detail. In the spirit of his approach to the Bill, I, too, will support the Lords amendments tonight.
	Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are very technical. They are basically drafting amendments and I have nothing to add to what has been said by the Minister and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk).
	On Lords amendment No. 5, I am still slightly worried by the Minister's reply to my intervention, in which I made the point that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, if passed, will make that amendment redundant. Liberal Democrat and other Members are very worried about that Bill and hope that it will not receive Royal Assentobviously, that is for another timebut it is bizarre that we are debating Lords amendment No. 5 when its force may last for only a few weeks before that other Bill is passed. I hope that the Minister will correct the record, because I think that he was wrong earlier in his response to my intervention.
	I want to focus my remarks on Lords amendment No. 3. The Government have listened to the debates in this House and the other place and have brought in the provision with respect to irresponsible lending to ensure that when the Office of Fair Trading grants a licence to a credit organisation, it can ensure that that organisation does not engage in irresponsible lending. That is a welcome development, but there are points that need to be probed.

Peter Bone: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that a licence may be granted and then, later on, unfair practices may come in? What are the powers to revoke the licence?

Edward Davey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes an interesting point. I hope that the Minister was listening because he needs to provide the House with clarification on that point.
	The concerns regarding the new provisionalthough it is widely welcomedare about definition. We have heard that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford wants more prescription in the Bill. At least, he did at times, but in his reply to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) he seemed to agree with the concern about being over-prescriptive. There is always a balance to be struck in legislation. The Government have sought to strike it by allowing the OFT to issue guidance. That is a settled view and I am not sure whether it will change as a result of tonight's debate. It is critical, in terms of the implementation of the Bill, that the guidance is timely and follows full and thorough consultation with the industry.
	If the Minister says one thing in reply to my remarks, I hope that it will be that he will use every power that is open to himI know that he does not have any strict legislative powers to command the OFT, given that it is an independent body under the Enterprise Act 2002to ensure that the OFT hears loud and clear that this House wants to ensure that the consultation is comprehensive, thorough and engages with all the different players in the industry. It is important that the OFT is clear, as it plans ahead, in its consultation and in publishing the final guidance, because the industry needs to invest in IT systems. It needs to design, build, test and implement them. Although the Department of Trade and Industry has given an indicative timetable, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, the industry wants greater clarity on that. The quicker the Minister and the OFT can provide that, the better. I hope that the Minister can say something on that tonight.
	I would also like the Minister to be clearer about the role of future court judgments. Clearly, the definitions of irresponsible lending are ultimately testable in the courts. Although the OFT guidance will be the basis on which IT systems are implemented and new practices are developed, there could be a case in the courts in 12 to 18 months, or in two years, that overrides the OFT's guidance and changes the whole system.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: If a subsidiary company of a main body did the lending, the OFT would have to follow that through the main company, the subsidiary company and all the way down. We have seen that with Barclays and many of the other big banks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems that the OFT will have will be enforcing the measure through subsidiaries? Who will it deal with?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope that the Minister was listening. The question will be whether the licence is issued to the principal company or has to be applied for and then issued to all the different layers. I hope that the Minister can clarify that.
	My pointthe hon. Gentleman intervened to make a separate pointwas about the role of future court decisions in defining what counts as irresponsible lending. I know that the Minister cannot pre-judge what the courts may say in a future case, but for the industry to make sure that it has some certainty and stability to invest, we need to make sure that the OFT's guidance and what the Minister says, tonight and at other times, assists that process.

Gerry Sutcliffe: We are running the risk of confusing the unfairness test and irresponsible lending. We want to be very clear that the courts will consider the concept of unfairness. The test of unfairness already exists within the framework of the financial services and affects many parts of the financial services regulations. The hon. Gentleman is talking about irresponsible lending, but we are not talking about a duty in relation to irresponsible lending. We are talking about the OFT considering irresponsible lending in relation to the fitness of purpose of a licence holder. There is a difference.

Edward Davey: I accept that, but let us imagine a situation in which the OFT has decided that it will not issue a licence to a particular credit institution because it believes that its previous lending was irresponsible. Presumably, the Minister is not saying that judicial review does not apply. I am sure that he would accept that if that credit institution was rather annoyed that the OFT had made that ruling and thought that it was unfair, it would surely be able to ask for a judicial review of the OFT. Perhaps I have misunderstood the 2002 Act. I hope that the Minister will reply to that point, because it is important.
	I want to come back to the point that I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, because the issue of data sharing is particularly relevant to the point about irresponsible lending. If a credit institution were accused by the OFT of irresponsible lending, no doubt it would want to defend that to ensure that it got the licence. However, given that it will not have any powersparticularly in relation to people who had credit cards prior to the Data Protection Act 1998 coming into forcehow will the OFT be able to say that it has been lending in an irresponsible manner? The credit institution will not have been able to have access to the other debts and borrowings of the applicant.
	To make sure that the new factorirresponsible lendingworks, can be implemented and makes sense, I hope that the Minister will move forward, with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, on the issues relating to data sharing. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk led that debate when we considered the Bill previously. He wanted to make sure that the Minister would push ahead on the matter, with his departmental colleagues. Lords amendment No. 3, which we will hopefully pass tonight, cries out for some real effort to go into that aspect because it is the missing piece of the jigsaw. If we pass legislation without that piece, there will be a concern that, although the provision is clearly a major improvement on what has gone before, it is still not quite there. Will the Minister give the House some detail about the future timetable for dealing with that issue?

Michael Weir: I shall be brief. I simply want to make a couple of points. Obviously, we welcome the amendments, which are sensible. The Minister said that Lords amendment No. 2 was a technical amendment, but I am not sure that I agree. It is an important amendment. Prior to being elected to this House, I earned my crust as a solicitor and I often had people come to me who had got themselves into financial difficulties. One of the problems was that many people did not come forward to seek help until they were very well into those financial difficulties. In many cases, they had court judgments against them. It was well nigh impossible to do very much about the situation by that stage. The amendment will allow the courts to reopen some of the cases where there has been unfair lending. That is important and I congratulate the Minister on the amendment.
	My other point relates to Lords amendment No. 3. As I mentioned in an intervention, I was concerned about some of the things that were coming from Conservative Members on this matter. I recognise the basic point being made: that both lenders and borrowers want some certainty. I accept that, but my problem with being too prescriptive is that those who indulge in irresponsible lending can be very inventive in how they do so. The danger with being prescriptive is that we will not hit many of those practices. The Minister has approached things sensibly by laying down a definition and leaving the matter to the OFT, so that there can be some flexibility. I note that it is more than 30 years since the last such Act was passed. The Bill is a piece of major legislation and if we find that we have to amend it, it could be a long time before we can do so.

Peter Bone: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Does he agree that we have not been given a single practical example of what the Bill would catch? I would like some of those before the legislation passes into law, if it is to do so.

Michael Weir: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that examples could be given, but I would not want them written into the Bill because it is important that the OFT is given the flexibility to deal with dynamic situations that can move quickly. People who indulge in such practices find inventive ways of dragging people into such schemes. The Minister's approach is sensible and I strongly support it.

James Brokenshire: It is a pleasure to be locking horns with the Minister again on the Bill. I made my maiden speech on its Second Reading and have followed its progress through the House ever since. As a non-practising solicitor with some background in consumer credit, I have maintained a general interest in its passage.
	We have heard that many of the Lords amendments are technical, and I would agree with that analysis. Lords amendment No. 1 obviously just changes around the wording of clause 7, and I have no issue whatsoever with that legal drafting point.
	It was interesting to hear the discussions on Lords amendment No. 2, which will delete wording to ensure that previous judgments cannot act as a bar. The intention behind the Bill has been to try to ensure that there was a retrospective effect regarding the unfairness test. I remain disappointed that we have not gained the clarity that we wanted on the meaning of unfairness, even at this late stage. It is interesting that previous judgments will no longer be a bar on the redress that a creditor may seek due to an unfair relationship.
	The most interesting amendment is that to clause 29, which returns us to the debate on irresponsible lending. The Minister's analysis that the provision essentially relates to licensing, and is thus distinct to provisions on the ombudsman or the court, was correct. The unfairness test deals with redress, rather than licensing. However, I wish to follow up a point that I raised with him about the continuing nature of the provision. The clause relates to the determination of whether an applicant is a fit person for a licence. The word applicant suggests that we are talking about new applicants who want a consumer credit licence from the OFT. My question remains of what will happen when a person has been granted a licence by the OFT, given that clause 29 relates to the issues that the OFT will consider when determining whether to grant a licence.
	I am aware that other aspects of the Bill, such as clause 38, which will insert proposed new section 33A into the Consumer Credit Act 1974, give the OFT the power to give notice to a licensee for purposes connected with
	addressing the matter with which the OFT is dissatisfied . . . or . . . securing that matters of the same or a similar kind do not arise.
	I want an assurance that the interpretation of clause 38 will mean that the OFT will have the power to address matters in not just the context of new applications that it receives. Clearly, new applicants might not have much of a track record to show whether they satisfy the evidence test on engaging
	in business practices appearing to the OFT to be deceitful or oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper.
	Lords amendment No. 3 is effectively further clarification on what those words mean, so irresponsible lending is, in essence, deemed to be a practice that is deceitful, oppressive, or otherwise unfair.

Peter Bone: I am beginning to become very concerned as I listen to my hon. Friend. If the measure applies only to new licences, it drives a coach and horses through the legislation. We are worried about existing licences, so that point needs to be clarified.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes the point to which I was trying to allude. I hope that the Minister will give us clarification on ongoing enforcement and monitoring and the ways of ensuring that someone remains a fit and proper person.

Gerry Sutcliffe: rose

James Brokenshire: I see that the Minister wishes to intervene, so I hope that we will get clarification straight away.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I intervene on the basis that I might not get the opportunity to give answers in full, given the time constraints. The measure will apply to existing licences as well.

James Brokenshire: It is important that we have that clarification on the record. Given that the legislation is not a consolidating Bill, but merely inserts new measures into existing legislation, such clarification on what the follow-through will be is extremely helpful.
	We come back to the definition of irresponsible lending. There is some similarity between our consideration of that and our previous lengthy debates on the unfairness test. I have even asked the Minister a question about the unfairness test, and he kindly responded by promising to monitor closely the impact and effect of the test to ensure that it does not have unintended consequences. One needs to read both provisions together, although they are separate. The unfairness test relates to a creditor who wants redress trying to assert that the relationship that was entered into was unfair. However, when considering irresponsible lending, the OFT can examine both matters. It can consider whether someone has been unfair, even though it has said that it will not try to define that. I presume that it says that that is a matter for the courts because of the context in which the provision arose.
	I hope that the OFT will be prepared to give more clarification on the meaning of irresponsible lending. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) talked about certainty. The industry needs certainty so that it can prepare properly and effectively for the implementation of the Bill. We will hopefully then not get into enforcement problems due to challenges on whether the provision has been infringed.
	The question of clarity and certainty is germane. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) highlighted the fact that a balance must be struck. On the one hand, we need to provide protections, but on the other we do not want something that is too prescriptive. We debated in Committee why a prescriptive list that is an attempt to give certainty might lead to a box-ticking exercise, rather than providing the protection to creditors that we all want as a consequence of a Bill. If the system is too vague and uncertain, there is a risk that certain sectors of our community, especially people from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, will be denied creditfull stop. There is a risk that if the system is very vague and uncertain, lenders will say, We don't know what this means, so we are not going to take any risks at all and thus withdraw from a specific sector of the market.
	Some providers lend small sums of money, but the annual percentage rate that they levy suggests that they are engaging in irresponsible lending. However, the monitoring process shows that they provide a service to the market that would otherwise be sucked up by loan sharks and unsavoury characters whose practices we hope the Bill will end. If there is uncertainty, credit could be denied to a sector of the market. Lenders already have to factor in the cost of risk, but because of the small sums involved that may appear disproportionate. I am deeply concerned that failure to provide clarity would have the unintended consequence of playing into the hands of loan sharks and illegal lenders who prey on the disadvantaged.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman suggests that if borrowers were denied access to those lending organisations they would be driven into the hands of loan sharks and unsavoury organisations. However, there are alternatives, such as credit unions, that are certainly not unsavoury, in many parts of the country. Does he acknowledge that they are properly regulated and do not offer unfair or excessive lending terms? I should declare that I am a member of a credit union board.

James Brokenshire: I would certainly like to put on the record my appreciation of the work of credit unions. However, they are not accessible to everyone in those circumstances. We need to promote a diverse and varied credit industry. I hope that the Minister and the Department will continue to work with the industry to do so once the Bill is enacted. However, I fear that the industry may withdraw its services from certain parts of society if the law is not certain or if it is over-prescriptive. A balance needs to be struck.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford referred to the briefing note circulated by APACS, which highlighted concerns about withdrawal from the market:
	In practice we are concerned that the OFT will set an unnecessarily wide definition and that this will in turn have an impact on whom lenders choose to lend to.
	Lenders should be more cognisant of the people to whom they are lending. That is the concept of responsible lending that Members on both sides of the House have sought to promote throughout the progress of the Bill. There should be greater responsibility, but not if that means that services are withdrawn wholesale from certain parts of the market. It is self-evident that the socially disadvantaged are in a difficult situation, so an extortionate credit bargain under the existing legislation could put them in a much worse position. People would not have access to direct or regulated credit, so they would fall prey to the unregulated sector.
	There has been reference to the involvement of the courts. In exercising its powers, the OFT must be certain about its remit and the provisions that it seeks to interpret. We have missed an opportunity by failing to spell out the concept of irresponsible lending in the Bill. In Committee, the Minister said:
	If we are very specific about an issue we could undo what we are trying to achieve.
	I agree. He continued:
	For many, responsible lending imposes a requirement that lenders do certain things before extending credit. However, the things that a lender may take into account in the case of one debtor may be very different to those of another. It will depend on a debtor's circumstances.
	Any duty to lend responsibly would mean defining what is, and what is not, responsible lending.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 28 June 2005; c. 93.]
	Several months down the line, we have included the concept of responsible lending in the Bill, but we have not included a definition. I therefore hope that the Minister can explain where we can find such a definition, given his comments on the issue in Committee.
	In summary, there is not certainty in the Bill about the meaning of responsible lending. I accept that a balance needs to be struck, but clause 29 deals explicitly with fraudulent, deceitful or oppressive practices. As a lawyer, I interpret things according to their context, and such practices suggest that a high standard would have to be breached before the responsible lending test were applied. Someone would therefore have to be guilty of an outrageous practice to breach that standard.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government appear to be against irresponsible lending, but they do not have the foggiest idea what responsible lending is?

James Brokenshire: The Bill does not provide any indication of what constitutes responsible or irresponsible lending, so my hon. Friend is quite right.

Jim Devine: Is irresponsible lending based on giving a loan, but failing to reveal who provided that loan?

James Brokenshire: I shall wait to see whether the Bill applies to us all in relation to any loans that may or may not have been made. It remains to be seen whether another Committee will decide to investigate its relevance to such matters.
	The time allowed for industry to prepare for the Bill is of critical concern. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford that the proper implementation of the measure could take 18 months. I appreciate that the Minister can probably only take limited action in providing guidance and greater clarity, so such things may be left to secondary legislation and guidance from the OFT. I hope that that is sufficient to ensure a smooth transition for the industry. Throughout the Bill's progress, there has been a great deal of cross-party consensus about the need for a measure to update the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which is not fit for purpose, so I hope that we will use this final opportunity to do so.
	Lords amendment No. 4 is a technical amendment. As a lawyer and a purist, however, I believe that it should refer not to the officer but to the relevant officer, given that that term is used throughout clause 50. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the officer is indeed the relevant officer cited in that provision.

David Taylor: As life president of outsourcing watch and privatisation watch, could the hon. Gentleman comment on the suggestion made by his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), that amendment No. 4, which seeks to insert section 36F into the 1974 Act, would in some way catalyse outsourcing, privatisation or contestability, all of which are concepts dear to the hearts of people close to the power centres in the Government?

James Brokenshire: I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend said in the context of clause 50 and amendment No. 4, although if he wishes to clarify his comments I am sure he will use the opportunity afforded to him this evening.
	Amendment No. 4 is largely technical. It also clarifies the role of the OFT. Without it, there would have been a problem if a criminal action had been launched against the OFT as to the responsibility and actions of persons to whom powers had been subcontracted or delegated. I welcome the clarification that the amendment provides.
	Finally, I welcome amendment No. 5, which ensures that the affirmative procedure applies to the Bill. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) with reference to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Hon. Members are concerned about the meaning of legislation, and the Bill seems to drive a coach and horses through large amounts of legislation by means of statutory instruments. Although I welcome the more positive way of making regulations under the Consumer Credit Bill, I remained concerned about other aspects, but that is not a matter for the Minister in the present context.
	I hope that when the Bill is enacted, it brings about a regulated market that offers diversity, flexibility and a range of credit facilities to everyone in a more responsible way, so that there will be fewer of the cases that many of us continue to see in our constituency caseload, where there has been an unfair relationship test or irresponsible lending. I remain somewhat sceptical, but I note that the Minister has undertaken to review the legislation in due course. During that review, I hope that we will have a further opportunity to see whether it has achieved the ends that it is intended to achieve.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I wish to respond to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about credit unions. Credit unions were set up to bridge the gap between loan sharks and genuine lenders. The growth of credit unions reflects the failure to regulate the industry properly in this country.
	I put two questions to the Minister about credit unions. If a new credit union is set up, will a new licence be needed? All credit unions, as the Minister knows, are individual credit unions. They are not part of one group. They are set up by local people and therefore use local resources. If each has to apply to the Office of Fair Trading for a licence and the applicant, under amendment No. 3, is deemed not to be worthy, how would the credit union continue to survive? One of the problems that credit unions face is that people can give 50p a week. No doubt the Minister will correct me if that is wrong. They therefore receive and give out tiny amounts, but they stop people falling into the hands of loan sharks.
	I am sure that all hon. Members have had a chance to visit credit unions. If they have not, they should. Credit unions give people an opportunity. I would hate to see enforcement, regulation or any form of licensing that could affect them. The OFT is being given sweeping powers to carry out the functions set out in the Bill. It is a statutory body dealing with an organisation run by local people, who have neither the ability nor the expertise, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, who is a solicitor

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should point out that credit unions will not be regulated under the Consumer Credit Bill. They are regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, so they will not be subject to the tests that the OFT will apply.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that credit unions throughout the United Kingdom and all the people who depend on them will be grateful too.

Jim Devine: The hon. Gentleman clearly knows a great deal about credit unions, as I do. Does he agree not only that individuals and their partners should join credit unions, but that organisations such as local bowling clubs, cricket clubs and so on should be allowed to do so?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman's proposal has great merit. Perhaps the Minister will consider it and in due course table an amendment to that effect. He will have to revisit the subject when the OFT wants more powers.
	My next point is about citizens advice bureaux, to which people turn when they have problems. In their surgeries many hon. Members will have dealt with cases of people desperate to get out of debt as a result of irresponsible lending.

Peter Bone: Is my hon. Friend aware that the CABs are dealing with so many cases of debt that they can hardly cope? In my constituency, the Rushden branch is desperate for extra funding just to deal with debt work.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and neither, no doubt, could the House. Most people who approach the CAB are struggling with debt upon debt, not one set of debt. They have taken out too many credit cardstoo many lines of credit. The Minister will be interested to know that that is the major part of the CAB's job, and the problem is getting worse. I hope that the Bill will address it, otherwise I suspect that the Minister will be back before the House making sweeping amendments to the Bill. He shakes his head. I hope he is right.
	There is another aspect of licences that may require further attention. I refer to the ability of international companies to trade. They can be based in any country and their subsidiaries can legitimately be based in the United Kingdom, as with many banks and other organisations. One of the problems is their ability to lend money in the United Kingdom. Regulation has been difficult enough through the Financial Services Authority and other organisations, let alone the OFT. The Minister will understand that international law enforcement to bring to book companies that have lent in the UK from an international base is almost impossible. The OFT has no power to do that.

Stephen McCabe: I do not doubt that international situations are difficult, as the hon. Gentleman says, but surely that is no reason not to proceed with the measures tonight.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I entirely agree. That is not what I am seeking to do. I am trying to clarify the position. I can see nothing in the Bill that addresses that. My concern is that people will take out loans, thinking that they are dealing with a British company that is administered in Britain, pays its taxes in Britain and comes under British company law. When something goes wrong and a company goes into insolvency or has its licence revoked, one has no recourse if it turns out that it is based in another country, which will probably not be in the European Union.

Peter Bone: I hope that I am not about to steal my hon. Friend's thunder, but he has mentioned the European Union. Is there a European Union perspective to the matter, and should we take it into account?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I always hesitate to mention Europe in this placebut luckily, certain hon. Members are not in their places. I do not have a problem with people trading out of Europemost of our companies have European subsidiariesbut I am thinking about a situation in which a European company has a subsidiary in this country.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I think that I shall have some sport: there is going to be a European consumer credit directive, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I was just about to come to that. Never mind my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone); the Minister has stolen my thunderit is nice to have one's thunder stolen by the Minister, I suppose.
	If we are to have responsible lending throughout the nations of Europein other words, through the European Unionand if the OFT is to give out licences, will we have to return to this place to invoke a European directive on a European credit Bill to police those licences? And will the subsidiaries be policed or licensed? My concern is that one cannot control subsidiaries. Consider how many credit cards the big five clearing banks issue through subsidiary companieshow many companies does a bank such as the Halifax own?
	I defy anyone to know which company has actually issued a credit card. If one looks on the back of the piece of paper, there is a spiel, and right at the bottom it will say, for example, National Westminster bank or bank of Scotland. Let us consider the case of Barings banka disaster of epic proportions. If there had been lines of credit cards and lines of loans, what would have happened? How could the legislation have been enforced in this country, because Barings bank was taken over by the Dutch post office, ING? I do not know whether that is still the case, and whether an overseas company could now be pursued in similar circumstances.
	Company law is unclear on enforcement. If a licence is given, what checks will the OFT make on whether that company is solvent? The matter rests outside company law. If a new bank were to come in, credit checks would have to be conducted, which could be difficult. What powers does the OFT have to enable it to do that? I am not sure whether such cases are provided for in the Bill. As the Minister knows, the worst legislation leads to the Minister having to come back to this House to amend it. The Bill contains sweeping powers, but this matter is complicated. If there is a European consumer Bill, and if we face the complication of overseas lending, it will be difficult for this place to regulate it.
	The success or failure of the Bill may lie not in what the OFT can do, but in its manpower, which is not enormous. I hope that we do not see Capita or some other organisation creeping in to control such matters, because: first, it is not regulated; secondly, it is not part of government; thirdly, it will be appointed to do a job on a contract; and fourthly, we will have no say whatsoever in the long term as to its actual operations. Will the Minister tell us whether there is a safeguard to stop the OFT subcontracting such work? Lords amendment No. 4 mentions:
	the officer, the enforcement authority of which he is an officer or the OFT.
	An officer could be anybody, presumably, providing that they are given the power to do the job. There is no reason why such work could not be given to one of those very large companies that do an enormous amount of work within government. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case? If it is the case, what are the safeguards? If there are safeguards, will they be included in an amendment, so the OFT cannot use them as an excuse to stop people lending, to make people worried about lending or to make companies that might want to lend think that they will not touch such things, because they involve outside influences?

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and he has touched on the resources of the OFT. Does he envisage that the OFT will have to review all the licences when the law comes into force? What effect will that have on the manpower of that organisation?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. As he has said, the rate of company acquisitions in this country is enormous. Credit lenders, both large and small, are taken over daily. If one buys a fridge from, for example, Comet, one enters into some form of credit agreement, which can be sold by that company to another credit company. Will the OFT check each such company from the start?

Stewart Jackson: Is my hon. Friend concerned about the efficacy of evidence taking in respect of the OFT, given the example of supermarkets, where there have been concerns aboutfor the want of a better wordreprisals against people who have given evidence to the OFT?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I was interested to hear my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) discuss Lord Sainsbury, who issues quite a lot of credit lines to people who subscribe to his supermarket chain. There is nothing wrong with thatbut how on earth would it be policed if the OFT did not have a database or background information? As I have said, I defy anyone to work out who is doing what. Will the OFT have the power to force those companies to let it know about such changes on a set date? Will such companies have 28 days or 14 days for compliance, and how will someone know whether their account has been moved?
	I am sure that most hon. Members have mortgagesone or two of us have more than oneand one must know from whom one is borrowing money. There is no guarantee that the OFT will be able to police such matters in the long term. I am not convinced that the resources will be available for the individual companies to be put into their slots for the long term and controlled by the OFT.
	Governments are very good at cutting resources, and we have seen too many examples of such organisations being slimmed down, in terms of manpower and resources. The Rural Payments Agency is a good example. If it goes wrong, who is responsible?
	The Bill is delightful and will provide protection, but the underlying problem is that when big companies start to play, they do not care who they hurt. If they start to hurt the most vulnerable people in society, the credit unions and others are left to pick up the pieces. If we then do not let the OFT do its job, or we do not give it the powers, or it does not have the resources, the Bill will be worthless. I ask the Minister to ensure that that is built in.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I said to colleagues that I expected this debate to be over quickly, on the basis that the Lords amendments were all agreed and there had only ever been one Division on this Bill both this time and before, when its predecessor was lost for lack of parliamentary time. I therefore had reasonable expectations that we would not go into the detail that we have tonight.

David Davis: So did we.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Well, perhaps other issues have had an effect. We have had a good debate, which was conducted in the right spirit. We had some robust contributions, which did not necessarily hone in on the Lords amendments before us this evening.
	I apologise to the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for not welcoming them to their new responsibilities. We have had discussions in Committee recently and I am beginning to see those hon. Gentlemen far too often for my liking. We continue to have good natured debates.
	There was reasonable support for Lords amendment No. 1, so I hope that everybody is happy with the distinction between his and the debtor's. The wording is transparent and will provide the opportunities that we need. On Lords amendment No.   2, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who has raised many issues about legal certainty and judgment. I take on board his comments and thank him for his congratulations on the amendment.
	The main amendment for discussion was Lords amendment No. 3, on the OFT's responsibilities in relation to irresponsible lending. There was confusion in some minds about the distinction between the unfairness test and the responsible lending function that the OFT will be able to take into consideration when performing its licensing function. I refer hon. Members to the debates on previous stages of the Bill, in which we tried to clarify why we were supporting that function for the OFT. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) meant to attack the OFT, and it is true that the Bill will have resource implications for it and bodies such as the trading standards authorities, which act as enforcement authorities on behalf of the OFT when requested.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton raised the point on data sharing made previously by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). It is important, and the three Front Benchers have been talking to APACS and others about it. I have also talked to colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and we will consult shortly on the issue.

Mark Prisk: What I did not hear from the Minister on amendment No. 3 was whether there was a particular reason why he changed his mind and accepted it. What was the one thing that led the Government to accept the amendment, when they were so reluctant to do so previously?

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is easy to answer that. It was the power of the argument, especially from some of the noble Lords, from their experience on various boards. Lord Borrie had also been involved with the OFT. It was the weight of discussion and the opportunity for the OFT to have that power in the licensing function. I make the distinction between the licensing function and the duty to lend responsibly.
	The Lords amendments are important to our discussion. We have gone through all the aspects thoroughly, both this evening and previously. The Bill has been well consulted upon. It became part of the process following the consumer credit White Paper, which again was fully consulted upon. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill stands alone in that it has not completed its passage through the House. In amendment No. 5, we rightly acknowledge and respond to the concerns of the Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to clause 68. I have dealt with the point about data sharing.
	Implementation is a key issue. A timetable will be produced. We are cognisant of the fact that there need to be IT systems changes, and experts from the industry will be seconded to the Department to offer advice and assistance when we draw up the various regulations.
	This has been a thoughtful debate, and I hope that the House will support the Lords amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Electronic Communications

That the draft Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved. [Mr. Roy.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

EC Treaty and Criminal Law

That this House takes note of European Union Document 15444/1/05 Rev 1, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court's judgement of 13th September 2005 (Case C-178/03 Commission v Council); notes that the judgement will have an impact on criminal law measures agreed in support of community objectives; and supports the Government's view that as a general rule criminal law should remain within Third Pillar competence.[Mr. Roy.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Social Security

Ordered,
	That the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 712), dated 9th March 2006, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Mr. Roy.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under the Order of the House of 13 February, any message from the Lords relating to the Identity Cards Bill must be considered forthwith, without any Question being put. A message has been received and the relevant paper is in the Vote Office.

Identity Cards Bill

Further consideration of Lords messages
	Lords amendment: No. 22M.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 22N and 22O.
	These amendments were tabled in the other place by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. They were accepted by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Scotland on behalf of the Government and passed by an overwhelming majority of 227. They were also supported by Conservative Front Benchers, although I am not sure that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) agreed with their decision. In fact, there are many rumours about his chagrin, which are no doubt exaggerated, but I am sure that with his characteristic statesmanship he will be able to put the House straight on any of his personal concerns.
	I note that Lord Armstrong's proposals were not supported by the Liberal Democrats in the other place, who sought to take yet another opportunity to do whatever they could to destroy them. I sometimes think that it is a little sad that the greatest achievement in the Liberal Democrats' historythe Parliament Act 1911is being so betrayed by the Liberal Democrats who are currently in Parliament.

Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I shall not
	Earlier today, the Commons re-affirmed its view, for the fifth time, that those who apply for a designated document should have their details entered on the national identity register and be issued with an identity card. As hon. Members know, that was fundamental to the Government's approach in implementing the ID cards scheme, from our first consultation exercise in 2002. That was followed by a policy announcement in 2003, the draft Bill that the Home Affairs Committee scrutinised in 2004, the Bill that was debated before the 2005 election and the Government's manifesto commitment.
	We have now agreed, as a concession-seeking compromise, that anyone who applies for a British passport could say that they did not want an ID card to be issued. However, that applies only to applications made up to 1 January 2010. As I have said during our debates, we have been constructive in seeking compromise on many points and I am grateful that Lord Armstrong, to whom hon. Members should give credit, has persevered in his honourable attempts to secure an agreement.
	There are three critical points of difference between the amendment that he tabled in the other place, which was overwhelmingly agreed to, and his resolution, which we considered earlier. First, Lord Armstrong's amendment preserves the integrity of the national identity register. It ensures that the details of all applicants for designated documents will still be entered on it. That will mean that they will be afforded the protection that that will provide from identity theft. It will also provide the wider benefits to society by ensuring that attempts by people to establish multiple identities are more easily detected.
	Lord Armstrong's acceptance of the importance and integrity of the national identity register was an essential point of his amendment in the other place at this stage. It was not covered in previous amendments and it is the key point that has enabled us to accept it. I observed the debate in the other place and Lord Armstrong made it clear that that first point was essential.

Nick Palmer: As my right hon. Friend knows, I introduced the original identity cards measure. Earlier today, I proposed the way forward that the Lords have now taken. Does he share my pleasure that the Lords have agreed that all applicants for a passport will go on the identity register so that we can make genuine progress, as our manifesto commitment outlines? In a non-partisan spirit, will he congratulate the Conservative party on reversing its position again?

Charles Clarke: To be candid, I find non-partisanship on the issue difficult. However, in its spirit, I pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who has campaigned for identity cards for many years since his election in 1997. It has not been an easy pitch on which to bat but he has done it exceptionally well and made his case powerfully. I am glad that, today, Parliament has paid tribute to his work. Earlier, he drew attention to the critical importance of the national identity register. Lord Armstrong's acknowledgement of that has enabled us to support the amendment from the other place. The integrity of the national identity register has been the central point that enables us to accept Lord Armstrong's amendment.
	Secondly, the amendment removes from the scope of any opt-out, designated documents other than the passport. The new amendment removes any opt-out from the residence permit, which specifies the right of third country nationals to reside in this country and the terms and conditions that they must honour. I noted from the earlier response of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that he accepted the logic of that change

David Davis: The Home Secretary is right. That is why I asked him to clarify the point earlier. The change improves and reinforces the relevant aspect of the Bill.

Charles Clarke: I detected from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier response that he understood that point and I am gratefulin a non-partisan waythat he has.

Simon Hughes: In a non-partisan way, will the Home Secretary accept two points? First, Liberal Democrats, with whom he may disagree, have at least been consistent in opposing identity cards on principle and in practice. Secondly, for those of us who continue to resist the ridiculous incursion of the state on the individual, if we all renew our passports now, we will not be subject to the ludicrous new system for probably 10 years.

Charles Clarke: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) dealt with the second point earlier. Consistency and idiocy are characteristics of the Liberal Democrats and I look forward to the response of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg).

David Winnick: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), I have never been enthusiastic about identity cards and I have not changed my mind. However, I believe that, ultimately, the will of the elected Chamber must prevail. Among the critics, I am pleasedperhaps others are notthat the Home Secretary was willing to make some movement towards a compromise. I congratulate him on not being as dogmatic as he could have been. The compromise is acceptable, however much I dislike the scheme.

Charles Clarke: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As I said earlier today, his position has always been clear. It is true to say that we have been flexible, but so too have Lord Armstrong and those in the other place in making important and significant changes. The first relates to preserving the integrity of the national identity register; the second to removing from the scope of any opt-out designated documents other than the passport

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not give way.
	The third concession that Lord Armstrong has made is that, once the passport becomes a designated document, his amendment will provide for a time-limited opt-out for people applying for passports also to be issued with an ID card. I share Lord Armstrong's view, which he expressed again in the debate, that it will be a small number of people who choose to opt out. However, while those who opt out will not be able to prove their identity securely in a range of transactions with public and private sector organisationsthat is the choice that they would make in opting outthey would also not be required to inform the authorities of changes in prescribed details such as their address. That obligation applies only to those to whom an ID card has been issued. If we agree to the amendments from the other place, as I hope we will, the opt-out will extend until 1 January 2010.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not give way.
	On those three key points, Lord Armstrong's amendment preserves the integrity of the national identity register, deals with the question of residence permits and documents other than passports, and proposes a time limit of 1 January 2010. These are important changes, and I repeat my appreciation for the approach that he has taken in seeking to secure agreement.

Lynne Jones: rose

Charles Clarke: Before I give way to my hon. Friendwhich I will because I am a generous, non-partisan type of chapI need to point out that, in the other place, Lady Anelay suggested that these proposals meant that the audit log would not apply to those registered when applying for a passport in this initial phase. For the avoidance of doubt, I need to make it clear that that is not strictly correct. Once registered, any provision of information from the register will be logged, which provides a safeguard to the individual.

Lynne Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he tell the House something about the charges for the passport and the identity document? In particular, will those people who decline to receive an identity card be exempt from paying the charge of 30 or thereabouts?

Charles Clarke: No, they will not[Interruption.] Let me make two points. The overall pricing strategy for these documents will be determined after the Bill has received Royal Assent, as we have made clear all the way through. We have given a variety of indications about unit costs, and we have made various commitments in the House that will be honoured, but the actual pricing strategy will be determined on that basis. Secondly, concern was expressed in the other placeI cannot speak for this placeabout the principle of whether a person should be required to have an ID card, as opposed to being on the national identity register. We are accepting the proposal from the other place for an opt-out on the principle of accepting an ID card, though not on the issue of the national identity register. In respect to the other place, its Members were very clear that the cost issues were not a matter of concern for them.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I will not give way.
	The date of 1 January 2010 adds a little bit of  uncertainty to the Government's plans for implementing the scheme, but we believe that that uncertainty will be manageable. That is a judgment that we have made in discussions with Members of the other place on these matters. Lord Armstrong's proposal has the support of the Government as one which, in our opinion, strikes a sensible and acceptable compromise. It is important that that is the case, and I again pay tribute to his work.
	In drawing the ping-pong of this Bill to a close, I would like to express my appreciation to the people who have worked so hard on this piece of legislation: first, to my ministerial colleagues, and even to the Opposition spokespeopleand, indeed, Back Benchersof all parties in both Houses who have worked so hard in this process. I know that it has been a difficult Bill, but people have sought to address it in a constructive and positive way, even when we have disagreedexcept the Lib Dems.
	Secondly, I want to pay tribute to the staff of Parliament. They have dealt with what has been one of  the longest ping-pongs with integrity and professionalism. On behalf of the whole House, I express appreciation for their work.
	Thirdly, I want to express appreciation for the officials in the Home Office and elsewhere who have worked on the Bill. They are dedicated and they sought to give professional advice, without any partisanship, to everybody involved in the debate. I pay tribute to their work in developing and taking forward this scheme.

David Davis: Let me start by associating my party with the Home Secretary's final comments about the staff involvedhis civil servants, the staff of the House and the support staff for all the parties. I include the Liberal Democrats in that, even though, despite the generous and non-partisan nature of which he made so much in his speech, he does not.
	The Home Secretary started by attempting to tease me about my view on this amendment. The amendment reminds me of an old story told to me by a regimental sergeant-major some 25 years ago, which I shall repeat solely for the purpose of amusing the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), who is in his place. The officers' mess had given the sergeants' mess a barrel of beer and the commanding officer asked the sergeant-major what they made of it and whether they liked it. He said, It was just right, sir. The CO said, Just right? He said, Yes, sir. If it had been any worse we couldn't have drunk it, and if it had been any better, you wouldn't have given it to us. That about sums up this amendmentjust acceptable.
	The amendment is a major concession by the Government in one respectnobody who does not want an ID card need have one before the next election. That, of itself, is worth having. If the election comes at its latest possible date, there will be a small gap from January 2010 until May 2010, but people can avoid that, I guess, by buying their passport a few months early.
	The Home Secretary referred to two unpalatable aspects of the compromise that he struck with Lord Armstrong, in which the Government drove Lord Armstrong away from his original intent. First, there is the maintenance of the requirement for entry on the identity register. Despite what he says, that is mitigated without the ID cards, because the information that goes with the ID card is limitedmost perniciously, the so-called audit trail. The Home Secretary said what is legally correctthe audit trail will still exist. But, of course, the origin of the data for the audit trail is the ID card, so that will not be there.
	Secondly, and more interestingly, the Government desperately resisted having the sunset date, on which full compulsion takes effect, after July 2010. They insisted that it should move forward to January 2010. Why was there such agony over those six months? The answer is obviousthey are desperate to avoid compulsion becoming an issue in the next general election. In that, they will fail.
	The amendment mitigates and defers the worst aspects of a very bad scheme. It does not, however, cure the scheme.

Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in one moment.
	The Government have not met any of the tests that we set at the beginning of the ID cards process: on cost, there is a massive 19 billion bill; on effectiveness, it will fail to stop terrorism, immigration fraud, crime, fraud and ID theft; on privacy, all our fears have been confirmed.

Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats are not surprised about the position of the right hon. Gentleman's party now, as it has changed so often, but we are confused in one respect. If he shared, as he said in the House previously, the view that the iniquity was not just the card but the information being held on the national register, how is it now acceptable to his party that one need not have the card until 2010, but one has no opt-out from the blessed national register?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the last paragraph of my speech, that paragraph being my reason for not giving way to him immediately. The simple truth is that this is not a perfect amendment. It is the best that we are going to get out of  this Government. We have a poor scheme. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has debated the issue with me throughout the Bill's passage so far, and he should treat it seriously, as he well understands.
	In my view, the mitigation will defer some of the worst aspects of the scheme, but it will not solve the problems. I should have liked to have no national identity register even after the next election, but we had no prospect of delivering that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. His party's spokesman had a part in it.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
	I will accept the Government's limited stay of execution, but I do not accept the Bill as a whole. It is still an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of the individual. It is still ineffective, costly and potentially dangerous. It is still a massive reversal of the relationship between the citizen and the state. While I recommend that my party support the amendment, let there be no doubt that my first act when I take over as Home Secretary after the next election will be to do away with the Bill.

Nicholas Clegg: It is worth my placing our objections to the amendments in the context of the Bill as a whole. The Bill has raised some of the most fundamental issues of principle imaginable. The introduction of identity cards will usher in one of the most far-reaching changes in British public life in recent times. It will change, unalterably, the relationship between the individual and the state by massively increasing the quantity and scope of information held centrally by the Government on each and every British citizen. It will revolutionise the capacity of the state to monitor the movements and behaviour of each and every one of us. It erodes privacy, and in extremis it will curtail freedomand, to boot, it comes at a cost.
	Even after all the debates that we have had, we still do not know the true financial cost of the Bill. The latest independent financial assessment from the London School of Economics estimates that the Government will run up a whopping deficit of 1.8 billion in the first 10 years of its operation. We still do not know who will run it. We still do not know how the database will be organised, and the Government's lamentable record in running large IT projects raises serious questions over whether it will ever be run successfully at all. It is a monstrous expression of big, big government.

William Cash: As an unrequited opponent of the Bill in principle, let me ask the hon. Gentleman a question about the disposition of the votes in the House of Lords. Is it the case that the Cross Benchers somehow or other pulled out in such a way as to guarantee that, if the measure returned to the Lords, there could not be the same result as on the previous occasion? In other words, has Lord Armstrong become rather economical with the votes?

Nicholas Clegg: It is certainly true that the amendments before us now are very different, in two important respects. First, as has already been pointed out, they would provide an opt-out only from having the card: a person's details would still be entered in the register. Lord Armstrong's first set of amendments refer to the register rather than the holding of the card. Secondly, they introduce the sunset clause referring to 1 January 2010, which simply does not pass the acid test of falling on the other side of the latest conceivable date for a general election.
	The Bill is also based, as we know, on a form of covert compulsion by the back door, despite the Government's own election manifesto commitment to the voluntary introduction of identity cards. That makes the Government's agreement to introduce separate primary legislation to usher in full-blown compulsion at a later date a largely redundant concession.

Charles Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that his own general election manifesto made specific reference to the proposals in the terms that we are now discussing? Admittedly his party was in opposition, but he was clear about the fact that this was the meaning of the proposals. The suggestion that this was covert is quite wrong.

Nicholas Clegg: I am glad that the Home Secretary scrutinised our manifesto with the care and attention that we have devoted to that of his party. Our manifesto stated, dare I say, the flamingly obvious, which is that it was always the Government's intention to ram the Bill through as a compulsory measureand that is exactly what they propose to do now, if on the slightly later date of 1 January 2010. We were right back then, we have been right throughout all these debates and we are right this evening.
	That is why we have consistently argued that the British people should be given another opportunity at the next general election to judge for themselves this illiberal, expensive and possibly unworkable scheme. That is why we agreed with Lord Armstrong when he said yesterday:
	There are a good many people out there who genuinely thought that the Government were proposing a voluntary scheme, and they were prepared to go along with it on that understanding.[Official Report, House of Lords; 28 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 651.]
	And on that understanding alone. Incidentally, that is also why I found myself in unusual agreement with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)he is not here nowwhen he said this afternoon, We cannot accept a compulsory identity card in this Parliament, given the Government's position at the election and the strong sense among our constituents that we want freedom in this country.

Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that tens of thousands of peoplepossibly millionsshare exactly the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? The fact that the Government have gone back on their election undertaking and pushed this provision through Parliament does not mean that there will not be widespread resistance to it in the country. Many people simply will not accept that this Parliament has decided this issue on that manifesto.

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend makes a compelling point and I suspect that many people will renew their passports in the weeks leading up to the new compulsory deadline of 1 January 2010.
	Of course we recognise the extent to which the Government have been forced to climb down and to defer the imposition of covert compulsion in these amendments, but this climbdown does not pass the key test: that any move to compulsion must, under all circumstances, occur after the latest possible date of the next general election. As has been said, it is also significantly less important as a concession than Lord Armstrong's original amendment, since it only allows people to opt out of having the cards; their details will still appear on the ID register.
	I have admired and agreed with almost everything that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has said about this Bill, but here we part company. He is prepared to go along with the Government's victory in ramming through compulsion during this Parliament on the basis that, in practice, things somehow will not be so straightforward. For us, second-guessing the precise timing of the next general election or predicting exactly what may or may or not occur between January and May 2010 can never be a substitute for an objection of principle. The imposition of compulsory ID cards must not under any circumstances occur before the electorate make their own views known where it countsat the ballot box. That is why, once again, we will vote tonightalone, if necessaryagainst the Government.

Stephen McCabe: I want to make a very brief contribution. I was a member of the Committee that considered the original Bill and it seems to me that few Bills have been subject to as much debate and scrutiny as this one. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) tell us that millions of people are against this measure. In my constituency, it seems that thousands are in favour of it, so I do not know where he takes the temperature.
	I welcome the compromise on offer tonight. I thought for one horrible moment that we were going to witness the spectacle that the Tory party membership witnessed during their recent leadership election: the remarkable facility of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, or, in this case, from the jaws of a respectable draw. What we actually witnessed tonight was the alternative: him marching his troops to the top of the hill, screaming from the top of his voice that he is against every single measure in the Bill, and yet, at the end of the process, telling them to march back down and vote for it. If that is his principle, I am glad that I am on the Government side of the Chamber and not on his.

Lynne Jones: On what basis did my hon. Friend conclude that thousands of people in his constituency supported the measures in the Bill?

Stephen McCabe: That is very simple: I regularly speak to thousands of my voters, and I listen to what they say. It is a simple process, and I commend it to my hon. Friend.
	The provision will be tested in the future, but tonight's result means that we will be able to get on with introducing it. If people think that it is wrong, they can test it at an election and cause it to be undone. However, the goal has always been to protect people from dangers such as identity theft, fraud, and major, organised crime. Our constituents tell us that they care about such matters: the Bill gives us a chance to address them.
	We have had too much delay. I am glad that we are at the end of the process, and that we can get on with implementing the scheme. We will then be able to tell who is right, and who is wrong.

William Cash: I end this argument as I began it. I am not certain that there will be a vote[Interruption.] It sounds as though the Liberal Democrats will press this matter to a vote, and it is with great regret that I must tell the House that I shall enter the Lobby with them, as a matter of principle.
	I have fought this proposal from Second Reading onwards, and I have been joined by people such as my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Buckingham (John Bercow), among others. Not all of them will know what has happened this evening, and some may therefore not join the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby.
	It was astonishing to hear the Home Secretary argue, in the most spurious fashion, that he had three bases for accepting these amendments. The amendments were tabled by Lord Armstrong, who I said earlier was being economical with the votesan adaptation of the expression economical with the actualit, with which the House may be familiar. By the sound of it, the amendments represent a stitch-up with the Cross-Benchers in the House of Lords.
	What are the three bases for the Home Secretary's acceptance of the amendments? He mentioned the integrity of the register. Could any word be less well chosen, in this context, than integrity? This is not a matter of integrity.
	The Home Secretary went on to say that all information would be on the register, but I am glad to inform him that I shall be excluded from the provisions until 2016. That is simply because, by an accident, I happened to receive a passport and a driving licence only this week. All the other people in this country affected by this authoritarian and totalitarian provision will simply be overridden by what has been described as an elective dictatorship. As a matter of principle, I find it impossible to support the proposals.
	In conclusion, I have never before voted with the Liberal Democrats on a matter of constitutional importance, but that party's tradition goes back to the great Liberal party. It has departed from that old Liberal legacy, which remains a bastion and a beacon of independence and integrity when it comes to the country's constitution and our people's right to make their own choices.
	The Bill should be excoriated and put in the dustbin. I shall not support it under any circumstances whatsoever.

Simon Hughes: I was warming to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) until his last couple of phrases. However, I assure him that those of us who oppose the proposal are not saying that people should join us because it is a Liberal Democrat vote. The vote is against the principle so I hope that not only the hon. Gentleman realises what is going on, but that colleagues from all parties who have stayed true to their principles will continue to maintain their position.
	The argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) is flawed in one obvious respect. He says that we will be able to see how people respond when the Bill is passed. It is exactly because the Bill has been amended in this form by the Lords that we shall not be able to see people's responses so clearly. Until today, we were fighting the argument that there could be a choice. He and his Government are trying to ensure that there will be no choice.
	I want to deal with the Home Secretary's repeated constitutional point. Today, he again lamented the fact that the House of Lords had stood so firm for so long. If there had been a clear Government manifesto commitment, the arguments about how the second non-elected Chamber should respond might have been different. But the Government manifesto was at least ambiguous, and many of us believe that their subsequent arguments were the opposite of their manifesto commitment. The other part of Parliament is thus absolutely within its rights to stand up to a Government who claim an unjustified authority.
	The Home Secretary cannot deploy the argument against the Lords because they are hereditary, bishops or appointed. The current House of Lords was created by the Labour Government. It has been made up in itscurrent form because of the policies of the Prime Minister and the Labour Government. It is no good their complaining that the Lords are not doing what they are meant to do; the Government put them there, some possibly, as we have heard recently, in unacceptable ways.
	Colleagues in our party argued the case consistently in the other place. It is a great regret to me and many people outside this place that Conservative and Cross-Bench colleagues and Labour Back Benchers did not stay with my colleagues and take the Government to thewire. It would have been a perfectly justified constitutional challenge and a reasonable defeat of the Government, and would have resulted in a much better Bill.
	If the Home Secretary thinks this is the end of the matter, he is wrong. Many of us have made it absolutely clear that we will do everything in our power, personally and on behalf of other people, never to have identity cards or to be on a national identity register. I encourage everybody listening and watching to renew their passports now so that they will not have to be subject to the ID card regime for the next 10 years. I hope that many will do so.
	The Liberal Democrats hope that the Government lose their majoritynot just their moral majority but their majority support among the British public, which they lost a long time agobut also their majority in the House of Commons. They won only 35 per cent. of the vote and were backed by only 20 per cent. of the British public, yet they have a majority in the House of Commons. When that majority goes too, one of the first things that my colleagues and I will insist on in the next Parliament is that the ID card legislation is reversed.
	We are happy to go to the country in defence of liberty, to oppose an increasingly authoritarian Government. That is true to our traditions, and the British public will respond far better to us than to the Bill, with its new powers of enforcement, even if there is a Labour majority for the proposal in the House of Commons tonight.

Nick Palmer: Very briefly, because we have all been debating the Bill for sufficient time, I should like to reaffirm the basic principle that the Armstrong amendment reaffirms this evening: as each individual in Britain renews their passports, and later, after the next election, we hope that for each individual throughout the country, everyone's identity will be secured, so we will not have a situation where others can pretend to be us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe), when I consult my constituents, there are those who are in favour; there are those who are opposed, but I know no one who has argued that we should delay and delay until 2010 or beyond. So there is overwhelming support for the principle that we ought to get on with it, that we should get the register working and that we should get that protection in place for the British people.

Richard Shepherd: Through certain of our laws, this country has defined its character, and there are some laws that are of particular importance. Through our common law and our statute law, we can trace a finger to show why we are an independent, free and liberated country. If there was a message that we sent around the world, it was the concept of our liberty. It was reiterated through the declaration of independence of the United States and the constitutions of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. That is the tradition of which we are part.
	Today we are faced with the final round of a Bill that restates who we are: we are the servants of the state if the new Labour Government prevail in the passage of the Bill. It looks a lost cause, but I believe profoundly that this nation is more vibrant and more lively and that it will in the end not tolerate this nonsense. If we look to the history of who we are and we stand firm by the belief in the individuality and autonomy of the citizen, we know that the measure gives unto the Government the central control of information through a register that may or may not be secure, and the information that we have had from people who understand these matters is that no system can render secure the information that is our personal data.
	On the proposition of the Government therefore, the House is now prepared to launch billions of pounds in an experiment that not only diminishes the people of this country, but beggars them in a sense: it beggars them in liberty, but it beggars them through taxation, too. For what purpose is this engineered? The rules of the game have changed, we are told. To what extent does that mean that we must surrender the first presumption of every citizen of these islands that we are free, independent and not the servants of the state?
	The House should go out with a ringing defiance of a majority predicated on party, because this is a measure that extends beyond the sense that we are loyal party men or women. We are representatives of something stronger, deeper, longer and more intense than anything that the Home Office now presents to us as the settled will of the new Labour Government. I agree with much of what has been said this evening: people will unpick and begin to understand about all those who will provide information to the Government, who say that they deserve to know all about us. What about the derelicts under the bridges beneath Waterloo? What about the old and confused? What about the mentally anxious?
	Those are the people who will be squeezed to try to remember who they are, but we will remember who we are. One day, this Government will experience the wrath and indignation of a country that understands that this is not a small social measure; it is in fact a declaration by Government that the centralised state is more important and greater than the sum of every individual free citizen of the country that we were sent to represent. We should oppose to the utmost and to the end this benighted and wrong Bill.

Lynne Jones: I will be brief. I just want to make two points. First, the Information Commissioner said:
	The measures in the Bill go well beyond establishing a secure, reliable and trustworthy ID card.
	Secondly, none of our fellow states in Europe is going down the route of having the central database. Indeed, the European Commission's data protection working party believes that the centralised storage of biometric information on a centralised database presents an increased risk of data misuse. I share its preference for information to be kept on a smart card that is within the control of the individual. The Lords amendment does not address any of those issues. For the privilege of being involved in this draconian scheme and having their data on the centralised database, even those who do not wish to have an identity card, but want to have a passport, will have to pay 30. I remain opposed to the legislation.

Stewart Hosie: I will be brief. There is no real compromise in the amendments for UK citizens. They do not change the compulsory inclusion on the central biometric database, merely the carrying of an identity card. Although there is a time-limited opt-out in the amendments, that is only for carrying the card and that time limit ends prior to the last date possible for the next general election. That is important. This series of measures has been opposed, at least until tonight, by six Opposition parties and many Labour Members. It is a shock that the Conservative party has capitulated at this late hour. The measure is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state.
	The Labour manifesto offered a voluntary scheme, not a compulsory one. Notwithstanding the power of the Labour Whips, given that a manifesto that offered a voluntary scheme was supported and backed by some 21.6 per cent. of the electorate, it was incumbent on the Government to accept the longer time-limited opt-out to allow the proposal to be put before the electorate at another election.
	Many on the Labour Benchesindeed, many in the Chamberwill remember the opposition to the poll tax. When the scale of the opposition to carrying an ID card or to being included on a central biometric database rises to the scale of the opposition we saw to the poll tax, I fear that the entire edifice will collapse. Our resistance to the central database will continue.

William McCrea: I have listened with interest to the remarks that have been made. At the beginning of the whole debate, the Home Secretary pointed out that the measure was essential in the fight against terrorism. Those who come from Northern Ireland certainly have a great interest in that, because we have been doing that for more than 30 years, particularly and personally. Many of our colleagues have suffered grievously because of that. However, at the time when the Home Secretary was presenting the measure as so essential in the fight against terrorism, we could not understand why the scheme was going to be voluntary and was going to come in in 2008. Now we hear the date of 2010.
	It is interesting to note that a Labour Member, speaking about how essential the measure was, said that it would aid the fight against crime, fraud and identity fraud, but seemingly someone can be a criminal or a fraudster, or be involved in the identity fraud game, up until 2010. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, on the fight against crime or terrorism we believe that if something is essential, it is essential now. However, it seems that the measure is to do so with something other than the fight against terrorism. It is like Big Brother desiring all the details of the citizens of the United Kingdom. My colleagues and I will vote against the Lords amendments.

Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), who always speaks with experience. His experience was missed for many a year in the House, but he is now with us again.
	It is said oftenyou know as well as I do, Mr. Deputy Speakerthat it is true that everything that can be said has been said, but not everyone has said it. At this stage of this Bill, everything that could be said, either in the other place or here, has in fact been said. I will thus not particularly draw out my remarks.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) used his notes copiously, and copiously did he use them. May I give him some advice? He will be better off in the future if he puts more of his thoughts into his mind, rather than reading them from paper. He also said that the Bill was rammed through, but if I may say so, that shows a lack of intellectual rigour in his remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) said that the Bill has been subject to scrutiny.
	I wish to be kind to Liberal Democrat Members. I could say that their speeches are sanctimonious and filled with cant and hypocrisy, but I would not wish to cast aspersions on any particular Member. I have sat in the Chamber for many a year listening to the same kind of speech, but they have not had the slightest effect in the country or anywhere else.
	I hold the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in high regard. He made a fine speech, but I must remind him that he made the same speeches under the Government of John Major. He literally hacked that Government to death, but when it came to a vote of confidence, he found himself in the same Lobby as John Major. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to find himself in the Lobby tonight with the Liberals, Godspeed to him.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is trespassing on a matter of some importance. I simply say to him that if the vote of confidence had gone the other way, his party would have come into government with a more federal Europe than we would have achieved under the Maastricht treaty.

Stuart Bell: We might also have brought about the kind of economic reforms that we saw from 1997.
	Let me make some kind remarksI hope that they are kindabout the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). He reminded me, if I might go into Shakespeare, of the blasted heath of King Lear:
	  I will do such things,
	  What they are, yet I know not; but they shall be
	  The terrors of the earth.
	I am sure that the country will take that into account. He urged the country to take note of him through our television screens, although, of course, that is against the rules of the House.
	I will finish with a kind word for the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I simply say to him that Edmund Burke would be very proud of him tonight.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:
	The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 84.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 22M agreed to.
	Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS
	  
	A46

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to present a petition on behalf of nearly 3,000 people from north-east Nottinghamshire concerning the dualling of the A46. You will be glad to hear that I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the past six months, that road has accounted for just under 60 casualties. It is strangling Newark in terms of business opportunities and making sure that we cannot fully achieve the business potential that the town so desperately needs. That road needs to be dualled in order to link Newark with Lincoln and with Leicester and Nottingham in the other direction. Unless that 17-mile stretch of road is dualled in the near future, we will continue to have a disproportionate number of casualties and the town will continue not to achieve its full potential. Plans have been implemented to make sure that dualling occurs, but it now seems that those plans will be delayed indefinitely or even scrapped.
	The Petition of residents of Newark and others,
	Declares that the petitioners believe that the case for dualling the remainder of the A46 in Nottinghamshire is irrefutable, and that authorisation for the project is long overdue. The single carriageway road forms a dangerous bottleneck in the high speed route from the M1 at Leicester to the A1 at Newark. The petitioners are alarmed that the Secretary of State's expressed intention to provide a speedy solution to a key problem in the strategic highway network might be thwarted.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to confirm that the programme for dualling the A46 in Nottinghamshire will not be further delayed.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Children's Play Areas

Stewart Jackson: I present a petition that
	Declares that Peterborough City Council has removed a number of children's doorstep play areas from North Bretton, against the wishes of the residents. A petition of some 347 signatures was raised over a period of two weeks, to request that the equipment be reinstated. The areas removed were an important part of the community, and had been in place for over 30 years. Their value was immense with regard to community spirit and local children's daily exercise, some of whom do not have gardens of their own.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action to encourage the City Council of Peterborough to listen to the residents' wishes and reinstate the doorstep play equipment.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Friarswood Primary School

Paul Farrelly: I am grateful for the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of Friarswood primary school in Newcastle-under-Lymea wonderful school, attended by many of my friends when I was growing up in the town. It is a school that does so much for inclusion and special needs in my constituency. The petition has been signed by 2,448 parents, relatives, past pupils and local residents.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the SaveFriarswoodPrimary.com Campaign,
	Declares that Friarswood Primary School should not be closed based on the results of statistical projections and conjecture commissioned by Staffordshire County Council and/or its agents.
	Further declares that it has a site, buildings and facilities that should be preserved for primary and special educational use for the foreseeable future.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Secretary of State for Education to recognise that the Friarswood Primary School has been awarded the DfES Schools Improvement Award twice in recent years and offers tangible benefits not recognised by statistical analysis and urge her to recommend that it stay open to service the needs of the local population despite a temporary reduction in intake.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

KENT SCIENCE PARK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Dhanda.]

Derek Wyatt: This is the third time that I have raised the issue of the Kent science park in the House. On 14 July 2004 I had an Adjournment debate on the issue, and on 2 February 2005 I had an Adjournment debate on the Kent and Medway structure plan in which I mentioned the science park. So I am extremely grateful that I have again been given the opportunity to raise the issue of the future of the Kent science park in my constituency.
	In 2004 the Minister responding was my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), but he is now PPS to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Minister who responded in 2005 is now a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills. I make no apology, therefore, for raising the issue yet again, because Ministers and indeed Departments move, sometimes more frequently than we would like. It is important that this issue remains in the in-tray at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	The Kent science park is still affectionately known locally as the Shell research centre. Shell had two research centres, and in one of its rationalisations closed the one just outside Sittingbourne in the mid-1990s. It was a blow to the town, because in many ways, it had been our postgraduate university. Many of its 900 staff could be found as leaders in our community. When it closed, part of the town died.
	In due course, the research centre was bought and renamed the Sittingbourne research centre. It had the job of trying to attract small businesses of any description to the 116-acre site. There were several different owners, but gradually it attracted some science-based companies, some public sector organisations and some non-science-based companies. It has never been 100 per cent. full, and to my knowledge, is only 70 per cent. full at present. It has always had a more general business ownership than strictly science.
	In the middle of 2004, Sittingbourne research centre, now owned by the De La Salle pension fund, which is part of the secretive Mars organisation, relaunched itself as the Kent science park. The new owners were smart. They persuaded my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to join them in their relaunch, and from the outset this so-called association has made our local villagers from Bapchild, Rodmersham, Milsted, Tunstall and Bredgar assume, wrongly, that that meant that the Government had given their blessing and were working secretly with De La Salle to approve its grand expansion plans, of which more anon.
	In Swale borough council's local plan for 200717, we have been asked by the Government to agree an additional 8,000 homes. I should add at this stage that as a result of the water shortage in Kent, I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to ask her to put an immediate stop notice on all future build until the water shortage is resolved. It is madness for us, as the Government, to promote the notion of sustainable communities when not only do we face a water shortage, but it looks as if by 2020 we shall face a power shortage too.
	We all know that the planning laws favour the developer. It is a huge sadness to me that after almost nine years we have not produced sufficient legislation to change the balance of power between the developer and the local community. In Sittingbourne and Sheppey, such is the quality of the leadership in our Tory councils at both borough and county level that almost every section 106 has failed to be taken up. There has been no new primary school at Warden Bay, no school at all at Thistle Hill in Halfway, and no additional recreational support for our great rugby clubs at Sheppey, plus no shops, pubs or village halls on the Meads estate. Moreover, what starts as 350, 500 or 750 houses in an initial plan always ends up as 550, 780 or 920. It is no surprise to me that there is sometimes a disconnection between our citizens and the political process.
	Where is that more evident than with the Kent science park development? My constituents are involved in a cat and mouse chase. Kent science park cannot get enough adhesion to its ideas, so it is ducking and diving at every level. For instance, in the recent Kent and Medway structure planpage 16, policy NK3, Swale 25it says:
	Purpose of the proposed modification was to acknowledge the need for new access arrangements to serve Kent Science Park whereas it refers merely to 'improved' arrangements.
	It continues:
	Description of development of Kent Science Park
	this is the critical part
	as a 'technology and knowledge-based cluster' would be more appropriate than 'science based cluster'.
	The critical aspect of that is that if science is changed to a technology and knowledge-based cluster, there does not have to be an affiliation with an academic institution. One of our bones of contention has been that there was no connection whatever to any international or national university.
	Let me draw to the Minister's attention the scale of science and technology parks in the United Kingdom. I quote from the 200405 and 200506 UK science park statistics:
	Number of operational Science Parks . . . around 60 . . . Property in square metres . . . around 1.2 million . . . Number of jobs in tenant companies . . . around 50,000 . . . Number of tenant companies 2204 . . . 62 per cent. of tenant companies are independent single site companies . . . Only 15 per cent. of companies are Bio-related . . . 45 per cent. of companies have 15 employees . . . 30 per cent. have 615 employees . . . Less than 8 per cent. have more than 50 employees . . . Around 62 per cent. occupy between 1150 square metres, with only 18 per cent. occupying more than 400 square metres.
	One can conclude from those statistics that the average science park employs around 861 people, the average number of tenants is 40, and the average floor space is 20,909 sq m. Kent science park currently has 56,000 sq m of floor space, nearly three times the national average. It wishes to create an additional 145,000 sq m of floor space, which means that it will account for approximately 17 per cent. of all the science park floor space in the United Kingdom. Kent science park is already one of the largest science parks in the country. At 116 acres, it is larger than Oxford science park at 75 acres and just a little smaller than Cambridge science park at 152 acres.
	The owners of Kent science park plan to expand to more than 300 acres. The park will be required to expand its company base from 84 to approximately 375 companies. The largest employers in the park, which account for a large proportion of jobs, include Amicus Response Ltd, a housing association call centre and Galleon BBC magazine distribution centre. One can therefore get a feel of how much science is currently on the site.
	At no time has De la Salle Investment Management introduced a plan to redevelop the current site of 116 acres. Unsurprisingly, neither Kent county council nor Swale borough council have demanded that. Both should be ashamed of themselves. There is substantial space on the current site for it to improve what it wants to do without developing on a greenfield site.
	Science parks have become the vogue, and in all cases, they are attached to universities. Leeds university, Leicester university, Bristol university and Bath university announced science technology or innovation parks in 2001. Liverpool university and Liverpool John Moore's university followed suit in 2004. Interestingly, they are funded by the local regional development agency. London, too, followed suit. More recently, Nottingham and Nottingham Trent have also announced science parks.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a science enthusiast and has increased science research funding substantially in successive Budgets, but at university level. At the same time, he has ensured that our investment in share option tax breaks are better than those of California. According to last year's league tables in The Times Good University Guide, notwithstanding the usual reservation about league tables, Kent was placed 44th and Greenwich was 94th. However, Kent has one newcomer, which constitutes the most stimulating part of the discussion. It is Imperial college, which is currently in Kensington, but owns Wye college near Ashford.
	Imperial is ranked third in the UK, after Cambridge and Oxford, but first in technology and science. Although it is a university college of London, it recently announced its determination to become a full-blown university. Imperial is hampered by its location at Kensington, and it could not develop a science park except on its site at Wye.
	I was the only Member of Parliament who attended the Kent and Medway discussions on science parks in September 2004. Kent county council said then that there was no intention to develop a science park at Ashford. However, late last year it announced a 1 billion science and technology park to be based at Wye college and run by Imperial and Kent county council.
	I am not sure that one can have two science parks in Kentone in Sittingbourne and the 1 billion science park. There is simply not enough investment or companies. If I were a young entrepreneur and I had a choice, I would choose Imperial, because of its history, rather than an independent science park.
	The downgrading of the Kent science park to a technology cluster means that it will be no more than a glorified business park. The Minister should seriously consider asking the Thames gateway to downgrade the Kent science park as a flagship project, because it has been superseded by events at Imperial.
	Let me state some of the things that the Kent science park wants to do. According to its website yesterday, it wants to increase its floor space to 145,000 sq m. It wants a new 29 million motorway junction and southern relief road to connect the science park to the M2 and A2. It wants approximately 5,000 new dwellingson top of the 8,000 that my community has already been asked to provide in the next 10 years. It wants a 3 million enhancement to the public transport system as a link to it, through the provision of additional buses and bus routes. We are not sure who will pay for that. It is prepared to put down a 5 million endowment for providing the academic campus but I believe that that, again, that is superseded by Imperial's intentions.
	Kent science park wants to create a country park and a conservation park totalling 54 acres, but we already have a country and conservation park, called South Sittingbournea very beautiful place that houses five wonderful Saxon villages. I do not see the point of breaking up the countryside and putting it back in an artificial place, as is being suggested.
	One of the reasons why Kent science park wants to do that is that the Government have provided 25 million for a northern relief road called the northern distributor road, which will give the 6,500 people who go to the Eurolink industrial estate every day fast and easy access to the estate without having to clog up the centre of Sittingbourne. Kent science park now wants to build a southern ring road to match the northern ring road. The game is this: it hopes that the Government will also pay for the southern ring road, even though there is absolutely no economic reason for it. And when we say that we are not prepared to build it because it is the responsibility not of the Highways Agency but of Kent county council, Kent science park will say, Now we will have to build the 5,000 houses, because under section 106, that will allow the funding for the 28 million road.
	We do not like the game that Kent science park is playing, because it is not representing what we feel that we need in our community. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that there is a great deal of concern about this in the five parisheswhich contain 3,500 of my constituentsabout the pace of this process, which goes against the feel and flavour of what we would like in our community for the next 10 years.
	We have a local plan hearing after Easter, at which the future of the Kent science park will be debated, and of course I recognise that the Minister is hamstrung, because of the quasi-judicial role of his Department. I understand that he cannot comment too much on the matter tonight.
	The only people who will benefit from the expansion of the Kent science park are the pensioners who benefit from the pension funds of De La Salle and Mars, the two farmers who own the land, and the consultants. After all, this will not be a science park; it will not offer added-value jobs for my community. It will be an ordinary business park, and we already have substantial business parks in the community, and substantial space left to develop for the next 10 years.
	I will finish in a moment, but before I sit down, will the Minister tell me whether the De La Salle team can withdraw their plans at the local inquiry in April, May and June and appeal over the heads of the system directly to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? In conclusion, I can put it no better than Michael Peters did in a letter to the local paper. It was headed:
	Time for another Wyatt's revolt.
	The letter reads:
	More than 450 years ago, when Wyatt's rebellion broke out in Kent, the government in Whitehall began to quake. Roger Truelove's letter
	published in the East Kent Gazette on 27 October
	gives grounds for hope that history might repeat itself. The Deputy Prime Minister is rumoured to support the Kent Science Park plan for a huge new commercial zone sprawling across the fields of Tunstallfive times the size of the present onebringing traffic hell to our roads as streams of vehicles drag through the town to the site. Maybe our present-day 'bloody Wyatt' (seemingly more effective than his 16th century namesake) can stop this dreadful plan in its tracks.
	I hope that that will be the case.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) on securing another debate on the subject of the Kent science park. He has raised two key themes: the role of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster in the planning process and the role that Kent science park may have in the regeneration of the Swale area as part of the Government's Thames Gateway programme.
	On that first point, I would like immediately to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are not pre-determining planning applications on this or any other site. Our national planning system is very clear on this, and we have a robust set of planning guidance to support it. Decisions of this nature on site-specific allocations and on determining planning applications will be made by the relevant planning authorities. Where applications involve a departure from existing policyand following the planning authority's determinationthe Government, via the Government Office, will take a view on how to respond.
	I need to saymy hon. Friend will have heard this beforethat the Government have made no decisions about the expansion of the science park. As there is no planning application at present, the Government are not commenting on the proposed development. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, that could prejudice the Secretary of State's position. Pre-application discussions may well be happening at regional and local level, but it is not for me or my Department to comment. I am aware that the emerging Kent and Medway structure plan, the local plan and south-east plan suggest that economic expansion is something to be considered, and that the Kent science park is recognised by local authorities as a key employer in the area. I would, however, like to reassure my hon. Friend that there is no way to circumvent the planning process.
	My hon. Friend will be aware, following his earlier parliamentary questions, that officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have met and exchanged correspondence with Kent science park. That, however, is in respect of Kent science park and its location within the Thames Gateway area. As a major employer, consisting of some 85 businesses, and with its record as one of the fastest-growing science parks in the countryI listened carefully to my hon. Friend's qualification in respect of the definition of a science parkit is only right that local and national officials dealing with the Thames Gateway have the freedom to engage with this company and arrive at the correct judgments.
	In the Thames Gateway, there are almost 4,000 hectares of brownfield land17 per cent. of the south-east's totallocated between London and mainland Europe. That is a massive area of market failure and relative deprivation, lying amid the buoyant economy and prosperity of the rest of London and the south-east. Not surprisingly then, the regeneration of the gateway, as a national and local priority, has been in progress since the early 1990s.
	The Thames Gateway is an opportunity to deliver growth alongside regenerationa regeneration that is physical, economic and social. It is an agenda for changethe chance to impact on whole communities in a positive way and enable them to share in the prosperity historically enjoyed by their neighbours. That is why some 450 million from the ODPM's budget is being specifically targeted on projects in the gateway, and some 6 billion of Government spending is going into the gateway to help to create the infrastructure needed to support growth and regeneration.
	Significant delivery is starting to occur. For example, last weekend the new Fastrack buses began their first services from Gravesend to Dartford in Kent Thameside. In Medway, the new university campus at Chatham Maritime is open for business and helping to almost double student numbers in the area at that unique facility, which is shared between five higher and further education institutions. In my hon. Friend's constituency, the completion is approaching of the new crossing between Swale mainland and the Isle of Sheppeysome 100 million of investment in transport making a real difference to the area's regeneration opportunities. That is on top of some 25 million that has already gone from the ODPM towards a range of local infrastructure needs, ranging from brownfield land assembly and the community consultation work at Queenborough and Rushenden, to creating new vocational learning centres, such as that at Sittingbourne community college.
	To make such transformational changes and enable regeneration to occur, we need to be mature about the assets that we have and our priorities. We need to make sure that the economic conditions are correct to accelerate growth. That will be part of the focus for the new strategic framework, which the ODPM is currently taking forward in consultation with all our main local partners. The new framework will clearly set the direction for the future of the Thames Gateway.
	With that in mind, we should not be thinking about downgrading Kent science park. It is an economic asset for the Swale and north Kent area, and local partners, including Kent county council, Swale borough council and the South East England Development Agency, need to consider carefully the role that it can play in aiding regeneration of the area. However, any expansion plans will need to be considered with regard to the normal planning process.
	To conclude, our planning process remains in place and remains robust, the Thames Gateway continues to gather steam, and by the end of this year we will benefit from a more focused vision that local and national partners will both have agreed. That will act to boost our delivery of growth and the related benefits to local people within the Thames Gateway. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by my comments about the planning process. Obviously, I will be happy to continue this dialogue, which previous Ministers in my position started, and I look forward to speaking to him about the matter in the near future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.